SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Anand Venkatesh, J.
Tripura Foundation (India) represented by its Authorised Representative and Chief Functionary B.Yadeesh - Appellant
Vs.
The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division (FCRA Wing), New Delhi - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1080 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos.10009 & 10010 of 2024
Decided On : 24-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.V.P.Raman
For the Respondent: Mr.S.Janarthanam, Sr. Panel Central Government Counsel

An appeal under Section 31(2) of the FCRA, 2010 is maintainable against the rejection of a renewal application, emphasizing the necessity for clear reasoning in rejection orders.

Headnote:(A) Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 - Sections 31(2), 12(4)(a)(vii), 12(4)(f)(iii), and 16 - Appeal against refusal of renewal of registration - The appellant's foundation, established in 1999, had its registration renewed until 2021 but was denied renewal due to non-compliance with prescribed formats and requirements - The court found the appeal maintainable under Section 31(2) and rejected the respondent's preliminary objections regarding alternate remedies and format compliance - The court emphasized the need for proper reasoning in rejection orders and remanded the matter for reconsideration. (Paras 1-24)

(B) Appeal - Maintainability - An appeal under Section 31(2) is maintainable against the rejection of renewal application under Section 12(4) of FCRA, 2010, despite the respondent's claims of alternate remedies. (Paras 6-12)

(C) Procedural Compliance - The court held that notarization by a foreign notary does not invalidate the affidavit submitted, emphasizing a practical approach to compliance with procedural requirements. (Paras 20-23)

Facts of the case:
The appellant foundation applied for renewal of its registration under FCRA, which was previously granted for educational and social activities. The renewal was denied on grounds of format non-compliance and lack of notarization in India.

Findings of Court:
The court found the appeal maintainable and rejected the respondent's objections, emphasizing the need for proper reasoning in rejection orders.

Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the appeal and the adequacy of reasons provided for the rejection of the renewal application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appeal was maintainable under Section 31(2) of FCRA, 2010, and emphasized that rejection orders must provide clear reasoning for non-compliance with statutory requirements.

Result: The impugned rejection order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.

JUDGMENT :

The present appeal has been filed under Section 31(2) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 against the order passed by the respondent in Renewal Application No.0300091252021 dated 17.09.2021, refusing to grant renewal of permanent registration to the appellant.

2. The case of the appellant is that the appellant foundation was established in the year 1999 and it is a trust registered under Section 12-A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant was granted prior permission on 03.03.2000 under Section 6(1A) of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976 and permanent registration was granted on 16.07.2003 under Section 6(1)(a) of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976. The permanent registration was granted for the purpose of education and social activities. It was renewed from time to time and the last renewal was valid from 01.11.2016 for a period of five years.

3. The further case of the appellant is that the appellant applied for renewal of its registration. The appellant received a e-mail dated 31.03.2024 from the competent authority informing the appellant that the renewal application has been refused under Section 16(2) r/w Sections 12(4)(a)(vii) and 12(4)(f)(iii) of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'FCRA 2010']. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.

4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The respondent has preliminarily taken two grounds opposing the present appeal. The first ground is that the appeal itself is not maintainable under Section 31 of the FCRA 2010 and only a revision can be filed against rejection of renewal of registration, under Section 32 of the FCRA 2010. The other ground raised in the counter affidavit is that the renewal application submitted was not in the prescribed format since it was not notarized in India by a notary public or by a 1st Class Magistrate. In view of the same, Rule 12(2) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011 [hereinafter referred to as 'FCRR, 2011'] comes into operation and consequently, the renewal application was rejected.

5. Heard Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for appellant and Mr.S.Janarthanam, learned Senior Panel Central Government Counsel, appearing for respondent.

6. This Court has to first go into the preliminary objection raised by the respondent with regard to the maintainability of the present appeal under Section 31(2) of FCRA, 2010. For proper appreciation, Section 31(2) of FCRA, 2010 is extracted hereunder:

    "31(2) Any organisation referred to in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 3, or any person or association referred to in section 6 or section 9, aggrieved by an order made in pursuance of section 5 or by an order of the Central Government refusing to give permission under this Act, or by any order made by the Central Government under sub-section (2) of sub-section (4) of section 12, or sub-section (1) of section 14, as the case may be, may, within sixty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal against such order to the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the appellant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, or, where the appellant is an organisation or association, the principal office of such organisation or association is located."

7. On a careful reading of Section 31(2) of FCRA, 2010, it is seen that an appeal will lie if any order has been made by the Central Government under Section 12(2) or Section 12(4) of FCRA, 2010. Learned counsel for appellant brought to the notice of this Court an order passed by the High Court of Delhi in a writ petition in W.P.(C) 9344/2024, dated 11.07.2024, in the matter of Samuel Foundation Charitable India Trust v. Union of India. On carefully going through this order, it is seen that a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Delhi against the rejection of an application submitted for renewal of registration by a trust. An objecti

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top