Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Anish Dayal quashed the rejection of a renewal request made under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. The court directed the concerned authority to re-consider the petitioner’s application for renewal of its certificate in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and within the stipulated timeframe. The court held that the impugned rejection order was devoid of reasons and violated principles of natural justice. It further permitted the petitioner to file necessary supporting material within 30 days and instructed the respondent authority to take a fresh decision within 90 days.

The petitioner was granted registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, and subsequently governed under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. According to the petitioner, its license was suspended on 30th April 2013. The petitioner approached the court seeking relief after the renewal request of its FCRA certificate was rejected by the respondent via a communication dated 21st October 2016.

Also Read: S. 138 NI Act | Cheque Bounce Complaint Maintainable Against Partners Alone | Firm Merely a Compendious Expression With No Separate Legal Persona

As per the statutory framework, a certificate under Section 12 of the Act of 2010 is valid for five years, with provisions for renewal under Section 16. The petitioner contended that the impugned communication did not include any reasons for rejecting the renewal and that reasons were only subsequently provided through an affidavit filed by the respondent during court proceedings.

The petitioner challenged the rejection on several grounds:

(a) The impugned order was non-speaking and lacked reasons. The reasons for rejection were introduced later through an affidavit.

(b) The rejection cited Section 12(4)(e) of the Act of 2010, referring to ongoing criminal prosecutions against the office bearers of the petitioner. However, the petitioner pointed out that its office bearers had been acquitted in all but one such case.

(c) The petitioner also questioned the constitutional validity of Section 12(4)(e), alleging violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(c), 19(1)(g), 20, and 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned rejection order and a fresh consideration of its renewal application. The relief claimed was limited to the reconsideration of the renewal request, while constitutional challenges were reserved by the petitioner for potential future litigation depending on the outcome.

The court observed that "the order impugned, whereby the renewal was rejected, was sans reasons or even the basic considerations." It took note of the fact that "it was only by 'one-line e-mail' that the respondents/Union of India rejected the prayer of the petitioner for renewal of the certificate for the period from 2016-2021."

The court found fault with the respondent’s attempt to justify the rejection through an affidavit, stating that "such conduct on the part of the respondent/Union of India cannot be said to be germane to the cause, in the sense that the orders impugned cannot be substantiated by reasons which are narrated through an affidavit placed on record by the respondents/Union of India." The court considered this approach to reflect "complete non-application of mind and can also be termed as in violation of principles of natural justice, thereby amounting to denial of opportunity."

Accordingly, the court held that "the impugned order, in our opinion, cannot be sustainable."

Additionally, the court noted that subsequent developments in law since 2016 might impact the decision and must be considered. It recorded that "in all the criminal prosecutions, the office bearer of the petitioner stood acquitted but except in one," and held that this "perhaps will, in our opinion, have direct bearing over the appreciation qua the case of the petitioner for grant of renewal of the certificate."

The court clarified that it had not adjudicated on the constitutional validity of Section 12(4)(e) or on the legality and maintainability of the prosecutions against the office bearers. It stated that "If so required, it shall be open for the petitioner to raise said issue, in case if order passed for renewal by the respondent/Union of India is averse to the interest of the petitioner."

The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned communication dated 21st October 2016. It directed the respondent/Union of India to reconsider the renewal request "afresh having regard to the aforesaid observations."

The court stated: "We make it clear that it shall be open for the petitioner to submit all such material which according to him shall justify his claim for grant of renewal."

It directed the respondent to "deal with the request of the petitioner in light of the material to be made available by the petitioner, before it in support of the claim for grant of renewal of certificate, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 2010 referred (supra) and pass appropriate order within a period of 90 days from today."

Referring to the timeline provided under the statute, the court remarked: "We have adhered to the timeline of 90 days, in view of the proviso to Sections 12 and 16 of the Act of 2010, which provides for grant/renewal of certificate of registration."

Also Read: Order XVI CPC | Plaintiff Can Summon Defendant as Witness in Exceptional Cases | Summoning Opponent Not a Matter of Right, Says Karnataka High Court

It further stated: "We are equally sensitive to the fact that the respondent/Union of India is required to conduct an enquiry in the matter of grant of renewal pursuant to sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act of 2010 as the said provisions has to be read with Section 16 of the Act of 2010 which provides for renewal of the certificate."

The petitioner was allowed to submit its renewal application and supporting documents "online as well as through e-mail and physical mode within 30 days."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Prashanto C. Sen, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kabir Dixit, Mr. Prasanna S., Mr. Rashi Goswami, and Mr. Prasanna B., Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, and Mr. Naman, Advocates

Case Title: Indian Social Action Forum v. Union of India

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6019-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 10199/2016 & CM APPL. 37992/2021

Bench: Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Justice Anish Dayal