"Personal Hearing Must Have Been Afforded": Karnataka HC Quashes MHA Order Cancelling FCRA Registration Of Centre For Wildlife Studies
The Karnataka High Court quashed the order passed by Union Ministry of Home Affairs cancelling FCRA registration of Centre For Wildlife Studies.
The court noted that the expression ‘reasonable opportunity of being heard’ in Section 14 of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 cannot be restricted to issuance of a show cause notice.
The Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “Principles of natural justice, is trite cannot be stretched to unlimited extent. But, it is equally trite that when consequences thereof are grave, it should be complied with in its entirety even stretching in a little further. Therefore, the words depicted in the Act ‘reasonable opportunity of being heard’ cannot be restricted to issuance of a show cause notice but a personal hearing in the peculiar facts of the case owing to the peculiarity of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act must have been afforded to the petitioner. Non-affording of personal hearing to the petitioner has rendered the order unsustainable and the unsustainability of it, would lead to its obliteration. Let there be no confusion that there can always be a fusion between hearing and personal hearing. ”
Senior Advocate Udyaya Holla appeared for the Petitioner whereas CGC Madhukar Deshpande appeared for the Respondents.
A writ petition was filed by the Centre for Wildlife Studies under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the quashing of an order of suspension of registration under the FCRA passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and consequential benefits.
The Centre for Wildlife Studies promotes and carries on activities relating to scientific study and conservation of natural habitats of wildlife, promoting projects which involve rehabilitating endangered animals, ecosystems and plants.
With the aforesaid objects, on January 23, 1990, the Trust registered itself under the FCRA. The registration was renewed from time to time. In March 2023, the Petitioner made an application for a change of bank account in which funds of the trust were being operated, which also came to be permitted. The Union of India issued the impugned order in the form of a questionnaire which allegedly never reached the Petitioner.
The main issue was whether the petitioner should have been afforded a personal hearing in terms of Section 14(2) of the Act prior to the passing of the impugned order.
The Court said, “As observed hereinabove, sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act permits cancellation of registration. The consequence thereof is found in sub-section (3) which permits no registration under the Act for an entity which suffered cancellation for a period of three years. This is the dire civil and economic consequence that would ensue. Therefore, it cannot be said that sub-(2) of Section 14 of the Act is restricted only to hearing, hearing would mean only issuance of a show cause notice. Therefore, the contention of the learned Central Government Counsel is to be repelled and is accordingly repelled.”
The Court, inter alia, relied on the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Samvad Society for Advocacy and Dev. v. Union of India (2019).
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition, quashed the orders passed by the Union of India and was also entitled to all consequential benefits including restoration of status quo ante.
Cause Title: Centre for Wildlife Studies v. Union of India and Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Udyaya Holla and Advocate V Vinayak Kulkarni
Respondents: CGC Madhukar Deshpande and Addl. SPP BN Jagdeesh.