TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 2162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulation) Act, 1976 within the time frame to be fixed by this Court. The short facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows: 2(a). There had been a Society established in the name of "Dohnavur Fellowship" which was a Religious Charitable Society and the same was established by one Miss. Amy Wilson Carmichael, an Irish Missionary. 2(b). According to the constitution of the Fellowship, it is an association of men and women working for the benefit of people of India and such men and women are being members of Fellowship and not agents of the Fellowship. As per the founders of constitution, the Fellowship will be administered by (1) Senior Members (2) The Council and (3) The Leader. According to the petitioner, the Fellowship also was getting financial assistance or aid from Foreign Missionaries and in this regard, the Fellowship had to be registered under Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, Department of Ministry of Home Affairs. No such registration was made and the 4th respondent who became the Secretary of the Fellowship had thrown away the original Bye-law of the Society and had introduced a new Bye-law with the help of which he h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... permission and time and again, the said permission by the said authority had been renewed. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel would also submit that, the latest such renewal was issued by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, on 22.08.2016, by which, the approval of competent authority for renewal of registration under the Act i.e., Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 was given by way of renewal certificate for a period of 5 years with effect from 01.11.2016. 4(b). The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, that apart, in this regard, pursuant to the representations given by the petitioner dated 05.06.2003, the matter was referred to the 3rd respondent, who in turn had communicated stating that, the private respondents are private persons and they are not holding any public office and therefore, the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent to enquire or investigate anything out of the representation given by the petitioner dated 05.06.2003 was not possible as they do not have the jurisdiction and accordingly, they had filed the report to that effect. 5. Apart from that, the 1st respondent also filed a coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trar, Tirunelveli, Government of Tamil Nadu and no notable lapse of malpractices could be established (Annexure-II)." 7(a).He also relied upon paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows: "10. I submit that, field agencies had exercised its power under Rule-28 of FCRA 1976 (now repealed FCRA 2010) but allegations levelled against the functionaries of the association 'Dohnavur Fellowship' could not be corroborated during the enquiries. Moreover, before filing of W.P.No.11881 of 2004 by Shri A.Thiyaja, various writ petitions were filed against the association and they have been settled (Annexure R-III), which evidences that the petitioner and others from time to time tried to draw the attention of High Court of Madras in point out the irregularities existing in the NGO but court judgments have cleared the unfounded allegations of petitioner and others." 7(b). By relying upon these averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the Assistant Solicitor General of India would submit that, absolutely there had been no violation found in the functioning of the 3rd respondent Society/Fellowship. When that being the position, the questio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not have jurisdiction to look into the above allegations, the complaints dated 05.06.2003 and 01.09.2003 are being forwarded herewith for appropriate action at your end. Yours faithfully, (C.D.TIRUMALA RAO) SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SPECIAL CBI/ACB/CHENNAI" "To Shri V. Ravindran Director (FCRA), Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhavan, 1st Floor, Khan Market, New Delhi - 110 003. Sub: Complaint regarding misutilisation of Foreign Funds - (Dohnavur Fellowship) ***** Sir, Kindly refer your letter No.II/21022/52(501)/ 2003-FCRA.II(MU) dated 21.07.2004 on the above subject. The subject was examined by this office. Since this branch does not have any jurisdiction in the matter, two complaints dated 05.06.2003 & 01.09.2003 received in this branch in this regard, have been forwarded to Shri Rajan, Deputy Director, Intelligence Bureau, Chennai for further action at their end. As such, this branch has not caused any enquiry into the matter. Yours faithfully, (A.K. VISWANATHAN) SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CBI/ SPE/ACB/CHENNAI" 8(b). By relying upon these documents as well as the averments made in the additional counter affidavit filed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery five years, the approval given by the 1st respondent to the Society has to be renewed. In this regard, a renewal application seems to have been filed by the private respondents on 14.03.2016. Having considered the same, the 1st respondent passed an order of renewal on 22.08.2016, wherein the 1st respondent has stated as follows: "Subject: Renewal of Registration under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, Sir/Madam, With reference to your application dated 14.03.2016 seeking renewal of registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, I am directed to convey the approval of competent authority for renewal of registration of your Association in terms of the provisions contained in Section 16 of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 read with Rule 12 of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011 as amended from time to time, as follows: Registration Number 076030011 Nature: Religious, Educational, Social" "8. This renewed certificate is valid for a period of five years with effect from 01.11.2016." 13. On a reading of the aforesaid renewal order passed by the 1st respondent, it became abundantly clear that the 1st respondent who is the aut....