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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 28571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA
The Coimbatore Diocese Society – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to the Government of India – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA W.P No. 5759 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.6274 to 6278 of 2026 The Coimbatore Diocese Society Represented by its Secretary Mr.J.Selvaraj Having Office at :

No.1260, Big Bazaar Street Bishop’s House Coimbatore – 641 001.

..Petitioner Vs

1. The Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs Foreigners Division (FCRA Wing)

The Government of India Major Dhyanchand National Stadium New Delhi -110 001.

2. The Joint Director (FCRA), Ministry of Home Affairs Foreigners Division (FCRA Wing)

The Government of India Major Dhyanchand National Stadium New Delhi - 110 001.

..Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the Impugned Order dated 29.08.2025 and quash the same and consequentially, direct the 1st respondent herein to renew the FCRA Registration Certificate of the Petitioner, bearing Registration No.075850021R, in terms of the Petitioners Renewal Application No.

0300046792021 dated 08-11-2021, in a time bound manner and pass orders.

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Venkat Raman for M/s.Tatav Legal Chennai For Respondents: Mr.V.Chandrasekaran Senior Panel Counsel for R1 & R2

ORDER

The above writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order of the second respondent dated 29.08.2025 and to consequently, direct the first respondent to renew the FCRA Regulation Certificate of the petitioner bearing Registration No.075850021R, in terms of the petitioner's Renewal Application No.0300046792021 dated 08.11.2021.

2.The petitioner-Trust is a public charitable Trust established in the year

1922, with a noble objective of ensuring education to underprivileged and downtrodden Society . The petitioner Trust is the recipient of continued support from philanthropic institutions located outside India, who would extend financial support by way of Foreign contributions / donations for the charitable activities rendered by the petitioner Trust. The petitioner-Trust was registered under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (in short 'FCRA') bearing Registration No.075850021R. The petitioner had lastly renewed its FCRA Registration Certificate on 06.08.2016. Thereafter, on 08.11.2021, the petitioner-Trust had filed an application for renewal. The second respondent vide its one-line email dated 27.03.2023, had refused the application stating that the Competent Authority has refused to renew the application under Section 16(1) r/w, Section 12(4)(f) (iii) of FCRA, 2010. Aggrieved by the refusal order, the petitioner filed a revision petition on 23.01.2024, to review the order rejecting to renew its registration. However, the second respondent vide impugned order dated 29.08.2025, has passed an order reiterating that no grounds are established to revise the refusal order dated 27.03.2023. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed before this Court.

4. The petitioner's grievance is that the impugned order has been passed, totally flouting the earlier orders of this Court in Tripura Foundation (India) Vs. The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs reported in [2024 (5) CTC 784]

5. A mere perusal of the impugned order clearly demonstrates the fact that the impugned order does not take note of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the revision application and there is no discussion on the same. The order is a non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. The impugned order though running into 9 paragraphs in entirety, would only state as follows in Paragraphs 7 and 8 :

“ 7. And whereas, the submissions made in the revision application have been considered in accordance with the provision of the Act and Rules. After careful consideration of available records, extant statutory provisions and the sub

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