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
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:
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
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.
An appeal under Section 31(2) of the FCRA, 2010 is not maintainable for the rejection of a renewal application under Section 16; the proper remedy lies in filing a revision under Section 32.
Compounding a violation under the FCRA Act rectifies the applicant's status, and vague basis for rejection violates principles of natural justice.
Point of law : By the time suspension order was passed, the Central Government had neither issued any notice of hearing / Show Cause notice in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 14 nor had it initia....
Point of law: By the time suspension order was passed, the Central Government had neither issued any notice of hearing/Show Cause notice in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 14 nor had it initiated....
The court upheld the suspension of the FCRA registration under Section 13, ruling that no prior inquiry or hearing is required, affirming the necessity of statutory compliance over natural justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.