Delhi High Court – Orders
Sahara Centre For Residential Care And … vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 December, 2024
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela, Vibhu Bakhru
$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 1216/2024 & CM APPL. 73824/2024 SAHARA CENTRE FOR RESIDENTIAL CARE AND REHABILITATION .....Appellant Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Farman Ali (SPC) Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Ms. Usha Jamwal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA ORDER
% 17.12.2024
1. The petitioner had filed the present petition impugning an order
dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C)
15991/2024 captioned as Sahara Centre For Residential Care And
Rehabilitation V Union of India . The petitioner had filed the said writ
petition impugning a communication dated 30.03.2024 whereby the
petitioner was informed that the competent authority had declined the
petitioners application for renewal of the certificate under Section 12(4)(b)
of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 ( thereafter the FCI), on
the ground that the petitioner had not undertaken any activity for which the
registration was granted under the FCI.
2. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition on
the ground that the petitioner had equally statutory remedies. The learned
Single Judge noted that the petitioner had two alternative remedies i.e.
i) to either apply for a remedy under Section 32 of the FCI
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2024 at 21:29:06
ii) to prefer an appeal under Section 31 of the FCI.
3. Initially the learned Single Judge had noted that the petitioner had
already other remedy under Section 32 of the FCI. In the context also
observed there is a decision rendered by the Central Government in respect
of thee petitioner’s revision petition is adverse in the petitioner’s interest the
petitioner could be at liberty to avail statutory remedies provided under the
FCI.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the
petitioner had a remedy by way of a revision under Section 32 of the FCI it
does not have any remedy by way of an appeal and to that extent the
observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order are
erroneous. She also contends that there is provision of a statutory appeal
against an order passed by the Central Government in a revision petition
passed by the Central Government under Section 32 of the FCI.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent concurs with the
said contention. Although it is material to note that the respondent’s
contention before the learned Single Judge, were at variance with the
contentions advanced before this Court.
6. It is apposite to set out Sections 31 & 32 of Chapter VII of the FCI.
The same are reproduced below:
31. Appeal.–
(1) Any person aggrieved by any order made under section 29 may prefer
an appeal,–
(a) where the order has been made by the Court of Session, to the High
Court to which such Court is subordinate; or (b) where the order has
been made by any officer specified under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
section 29, to the Court of Session within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction such order of adjudication of confiscation was made, within
one month from the date of communication to such person of the order:
Provided that the appellate court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2024 at 21:29:06
was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the
said period of one month, allow such appeal to be preferred within a
further period of one month, but not thereafter.
(2) Any organisation referred to in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section
3, or any person or association referred to in section 6 or section 9,
aggrieved by an order made in pursuance of section 5 or by an order of
the Central Government refusing to give permission under this Act, or by
any order made by the Central Government under sub-section (2) or sub-
section (4) of section 12, or sub-section (1) of section 14, as the case may
be, may, within sixty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal
against such order to the High Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the appellant ordinarily resides or carries on business or
personally works for gain, or, where the appellant is an organisation or
association, the principal office of such organisation or association is
located.
(3) Every appeal preferred under this section shall be deemed to be an
appeal from an original decree and the provisions of Order XLI of the
First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall, as
far as may be, apply thereto as they apply to an appeal from an original
decree.
32. Revision of orders by Central Government.–
(1) The Central Government may, either of its own motion or on an
application for revision by the person registered under this Act, call for
and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act in which any
such order has been passed by it and may make such inquiry or cause
such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may
pass such order thereon as it thinks fit.
(2) The Central Government shall not of its own motion revise any order
under this section if the order has been made more than one year
previously.
(3) In the case of an application for revision under this section by the
person referred to in sub-section (1), the application must be made
within one year from the date on which the order in question was
communicated to him or the date on which he otherwise came to know of
it, whichever is earlier: Provided that the Central Government may, if it
is satisfied that such person was prevented by sufficient cause from
making the application within that period, admit an application made
after the expiry of that period.
(4) The Central Government shall not revise any order where an appeal
against the order lies but has not been made and the time within which
such appeal may be made has not expired or such person has not waived
his right of appeal or an appeal has been filed under this Act.
(5) Every application by such person for revision under this section shall
be accompanied by such fee, as may be prescribed.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2024 at 21:29:06
Explanation.– An order by the Central Government declining to
interfere shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed not to be an
order prejudicial to such person.
7. It is material to note that under Sub-section 2 of Section 31 of the FCI
an appeal also lies against any order of the Central Government refusing to
give permission under the FCI.
8. In the present case the petitioner’s grievance alleged to a
communication declining renewal of certificate under Section 16 of the FCI.
The question whether declining of renewal of certificate would construe
permission under the act is a debateable issue.
9. It is also apparent from the plain language of Section 32(4) of the Act
that the revisionary powers of the Central Government are wide.
10. It is also clear that an appeal under Section 31 would not lie against an
order passed by the Central Government exercise revisionary power under
Section 32 of the FCI. To the said extent we concurred with the submission
made by the petitioner that the observations made by the learned Single
Judge to the said effect are erroneous.
11. In so far as the question whether an appeal would lie against a
communication dated 30.03.2024 declining the renewal of certificate under
Section 16 of the Act is concerned. Learned counsel for the revenue states
that he has instructions to state that the order was passed under Section 16 of
the Act read with Section 12(4) of the FCI which is and therefore would be
an appealable order under Section 31(2) of the FCI.
12. We do not consider it apposite to examine this question any further
detail in this appeal as it is apparent that learned Single Judge declined to
entertain the writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) 15991/2024 on the ground that the
petitioner had wholly an officious remedy alternate remedy. Undisputedly
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2024 at 21:29:06
the petitioner has remedy by way of the revision under Section 32 of the
FCI. And, the petitioner exercised had right to avail of the said remedy.
13. In that view, we find no infirmity with the decision of the learned
Single Judge to entertain the writ petition.
14. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
DECEMBER 17, 2024
KG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2024 at 21:29:06