Karnataka High Court
Institute Of Public Health vs Union Of India on 28 January, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 141
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NO.1486 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH
NO.250, MASTERS COTTAGE
2ND C MAIN, 2ND C CROSS
GIRINAGAR 1 PHASE
BANGALORE-560 085.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
DR. DEVADASAN. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.V. DHANANJAY, ADV.)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY
FCRA CELL
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI-110 001.
3. ICICI BANK
REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER
148/75-1, 26TH MAIN
JAYANAGAR, 9TH BLOCK BRANCH
BANGALORE-560 069. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. ANUSUYADEVI, C.G.C. FOR R1 & R2
R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
2
R1 & R2 TO RENEW THE FCRA LICENCE REGISTRATION DATED
05.03.2010 BY CONSIDERING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION
NO.6902022016 FOR RENEWING FCRA REGISTRATION AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri K.V. Dhananjay, learned counsel for petitioner. Smt. K.S. Anusuyadevi, learned C.G.C. for respondents No.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to issue a direction to respondent No.3 to unfreeze FCRA Bank Account. The petitioner also seeks a direction to respondent No.3 to facilitate bank withdrawals at least to the tune of `.17 Lakhs every month to ensure survival and welfare of 37 employees of the petitioner. 3
4. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is an Institute of Public Health, a non-profit organization and is a legal entity registered as society in the year 2005. The petitioner has engaged in providing exemplary services with extensive reach in the area of public health, especially in the state of Karnataka. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner is a non-profit academic institution which conducts research and training in public health. The petitioner in accordance with the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) applied for renewal of FCRA license within its limitation and in complete compliance with the Act. The respondents No.1 and 2 without assigning any reason have refused to renew the petitioner's FCRA Registration Certificate bearing No.094421350R dated 05.03.2010. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 4
5. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in refusing to reconsider the renewal application of the petitioner is per se arbitrary and cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the request of the petitioner to reconsider the renewal application has been refused in public interest. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of the letter dated 28.12.2016 along with a memo which is taken on record.
7. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the records.
8. The relevant extract of the order which has been taken on record dated 28.12.2016, by which the 5 request of the petitioner for reconsideration of the renewal application has been rejected reads as under:
"2. It is to inform that the application for renewal is refused in the public interest."
9. It is trite law that even a quasi-judicial authority is required to assign reasons for passing the order. In the instant case, the respondents No.1 and 2 failed to even assign reasons. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it is accordingly quashed and set aside. The respondents No.1 and 2 is directed to decide the application for renewal preferred by the petitioner by a speaking order and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In view of the decision laid down by the Supreme Court in 'VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK', 2010 (3) SCC 732, reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of 6 nature justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making process.
10. Insofar as enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is evident that a competent authority in support of its order is required to assign reasons and assigning of reasons is read as part of principles of natural justice and the same minimize the chances of arbitrariness. The order dated 28.12.2016 only contains the conclusion and not the reasons. The order as passed is cryptic in nature and suffers from perversity, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
11. Hence, the respondents No.1 and 2 is directed to consider the renewal application of the petitioner for grant of FCRA license afresh by a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed today. Since, the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen without any authority of law; the respondent 7 No.3 shall defreeze the account of the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST