Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.SAHOO, S.S.MISHRA
Utkal Jyoti Educational Society, Jharsuguda – Appellant
Versus
Joint Director (FCRA), Ministry of Home Affairs – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
2. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the opposite party.
3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Utkal Jyoti Educational Society, Jharsuguda challenging the orders dated 20.01.2023 and 21.05.2025 passed by the Joint Director (FCRA), Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division, the opposite party under Annexures-1 and 2 respectively.
4. The factual scenario as it appears that the petitioner society/association was granted registration certificate on 10.11.1990 under Society Registration Act and accordingly, it was registered under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (hereinafter, ‘FCRA Act’) and it is stated that the association was engaged in administrating the Educational and Training Institutions and related establishment and to conduct training courses, seminars, lecturers, discussions for students, teachers, social workers, technicians and other personnel for the staff of colleges, high schools, middle schools in the m
The authority can refuse renewal of FCRA registration based on safety concerns without violating natural justice, as supported by inquiry findings.
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.
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.
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 initiated....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of following due process, including issuing a show cause notice under Section 14, before directing suspension of the FCRA certificate....
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
