9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied 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 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssistance 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 had misused the funds created by the Fellowship, without giving or rendering any account and without any valid approval from the authorities concerned. Therefore, in this regard, the petitioner claimed to be the interested person, made a representation on 05.06.2003 to the Superintendent of Police, (CBI), Chennai to investigate the issue with regard to alleged violation of the Fellowship/Society under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2(c). Since, no action was taken by the Superintendent of Police, (CBI) who is the 2nd respondent herein, the petitioner had moved this Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer. 3. Mr. N. S. Nandakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though complaint was given by way of representation in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 counter affidavit before this Court, stating that, as per records available with the said respondent, it had been verified as to whether any violation was noticed in the functioning of the Society/Fellowship under the private respondents herein and it was specifically stated in the counter affidavit by the 1st respondent that, no such adverse action had been noticed. When that being the position, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that, the complaint given by the petitioner through the representation dated 05.06.2003 is a frivolous one and the same also has been enquired into by the authorities concerned and they had given a report to that effect. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private parties would also submit that, in so far as the locus of the petitioner is concerned, he is neither me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts 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 question of taking any adverse action against the 3rd respondent Society does not arise. 8. Mr. K. Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor (CBI) appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit by relying upon the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent dated 06.08.2018, that, the 2nd respondent had verified the complaint dated 05.06.2003 of the petitioner and it was found that the allegations pertain to private persons and there was no involvement of public servant in the said allegations. In this regard, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI) appearing for 2nd respondent has relied upon the following averments in the additional counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent: 4. It is submitted that CBI had verified the said complaint dated 05.06.2003 and found that the allegations pertain to priv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the 2nd respondent, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI) would submit that, the issue raised by the petitioner through his representation dated 05.06.2003 is no more the issue which comes within the jurisdiction or purview of the 2nd respondent and accordingly, there is no scope for any further investigation in this matter by the 2nd respondent. 9. I have considered the averments made in the pleadings as well as the submissions made by the learned respective counsel and also perused the materials placed before this Court. 10. The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to enquire or investigate on the complaint given by the petitioner by way of representation dated 05.06.2003 against the respondents 3 to 6 and take criminal action against them under the provisions of the Act i.e., Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, especially ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture: 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 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. 14. 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
