2018 (8) TMI 2162 - HC - Indian Laws

Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to complete the process of investigation carried on against the 3rd respondent on the basis of the representations given by the petitioner dated 05.06.2003 - criminal and adjudicatory action for the various offences and violations of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 within the time frame to be fixed by this Court - Section 28 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 - HELD THAT - On a reading of the renewal order passed by the 1st respondent, it became abundantly clear that the 1st respondent who is the authority to give renewal under the said Act, i.e., Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, had given the renewal of approval/license for a further period of five years with effect from 01.11.2016. Before giving such renewal, the 1st respondent had thoroughly verified the performance of the Society/Fellowship and thereafter only, such a renewal was issued. Therefore, from the said document, one can easily infer that the authority has not found anything adverse against the private respondents and that is the reason why they have given the latest renewal of the permission/approval for a further period of five years. So, all these documents would coherently and conjointly go to show that, all these stake holders/authorities have gone into the affairs of the Society/Fellowship and they found nothing adverse or anything illegal or in violation of any law much less the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976. When that being the position, the petitioner cannot even now insist upon this Court to still give certain direction to the respondents to probe into or investigate into or enquire into subsequent allegations. If at all the petitioner has got any further grievances or still the petitioner has grievances, it is open to him to agitate the matter in the manner known to law. More over, since the learned Senior Counsel for the private parties raised the issue that the petitioner has no locus to file the Writ Petition like the one which is on hand, as he has not given anything, what so ever in any capacity with the private respondents/Society/Fellowship. The petitioner shall establish the said locus also in future endeavors like the one of the present Writ Petition - If at all the petitioner has got any grievances in the public interest, he shall make endeavors to re-address the same in the manner known to law and not by way of adversary Writ Petition like the one which is presently dealt with by this Court. This Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petition does not deserve any further consideration for adjudication and no relief can be given to the petitioner as the only relief sought for by the petitioner has already been accomplished in the eye of law - the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Alleged violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 by a religious charitable society.
2. Jurisdiction and authority of respondents to investigate the allegations.
3. Locus standi of the petitioner in filing the writ petition.
4. Renewal of registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976:

The petitioner sought a mandamus to direct respondents to complete the investigation against certain private parties for alleged violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976. The petitioner claimed that the society, established as a religious charitable entity, was receiving foreign contributions without proper registration and that the funds were misused. Despite representations made in 2003, the petitioner argued that no investigation had been conducted, necessitating the writ petition.

2. Jurisdiction and Authority of Respondents to Investigate:

The respondents, including the Assistant Solicitor General and Special Public Prosecutor (CBI), contended that the allegations pertained to private persons and did not involve public servants, thus falling outside the jurisdiction of the CBI. The 1st respondent, Ministry of Home Affairs, conducted inspections and found no violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. The CBI further clarified that the complaints were forwarded to the Intelligence Bureau due to lack of jurisdiction, and no enquiry was conducted by them.

3. Locus Standi of the Petitioner:

The private parties argued that the petitioner lacked locus standi as he was neither a member nor an office bearer of the society. The petitioner's connection to the society was not established, and the writ petition was filed adversarially rather than in public interest. The court noted that the petitioner must establish his locus in any future legal endeavors.

4. Renewal of Registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act:

The private parties demonstrated that the society was duly registered under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act and had its registration renewed periodically. The latest renewal was granted for five years starting from November 1, 2016, after thorough verification by the Ministry of Home Affairs. This renewal indicated that no adverse findings were made against the society, supporting the respondents' position that no violations occurred.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the writ petition did not merit further consideration as the respondents had already addressed the petitioner's complaints. The investigation and renewal processes confirmed no violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner could pursue any further grievances through appropriate legal channels, provided he establishes the necessary locus standi. The petition was dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

← Previous Next →