M/S Sitaram Jindal Foundation v. The Deputy Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18700 OF 2026 (GM-FA)

BETWEEN:

¶1M/S SITARAM JINDAL FOUNDATION 16TH KM TUMKUR ROAD, JINDAL NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 073 KARNATAKA NATURE OF BUSINESS: CHARITABLE, PROVIDING SCHOLARSHIPS TO MERITORIOUS AND NEEDY STUDENTS ACROSS INDIA, FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION REGULATION ACT 1976 REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE, SRI DHIRAJ SINGH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O SRI OMPAL SINGH THAKUR, PAN NO.ADLPT8253E MOB. NO.9035954349 EMAIL ID: ACCOUNTS@SITARAMJINDALFOUNDATION.ORG … PETITIONER

(BY MS. JINITA CHATERJEE AND DIMPY KUMARI, ADVOCATES FOR SRI. S PARTHASARATHI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FOREIGNERS DIVISION, (FCRA WING) NATIONAL STADIUM, NEAR PRAGATI MAIDAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001

by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (FCRA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FOREIGNERS-II DIVISION, (FCRA WING) MONITORING UNIT, MDCNS, NEAR INDIA GATE, NEW DELHI - 110 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARVIND KAMATH, ASG)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2026 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-Q) AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER

¶1The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Order dated

23.05.2026 issued by 1st Respondent (ANNEXURE-Q);

b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing 1st Respondent to grant renewal of Registration under Section 16 of the Act by accepting the submissions of Petitioner in letter dated

28.04.2026 (ANNEXURE-P);

c. Issue a Writ of Prohibition restraining the 1st Respondent to proceed further in pursuance of the Order dated 23.05.2026 (ANNEXURE-Q);

d. Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the Petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶2The petitioner had obtained registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, on

07.05.1989. Subsequently, on the ground that the annual return for the year 2021–22 had not been filed, renewal of the registration was refused. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition under Section 32 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. The said Revision Petition came to be partly allowed, subject to the petitioner compounding the offence. The order passed in the Revision Petition was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.39055 of 2025, which was disposed of by this Court on 23.01.2026, permitting the petitioner to submit a representation to the competent authority within four weeks from the date of the order, along with documents substantiating its case that it had not received any foreign contribution during the relevant period. This Court further observed that, if the petitioner availed itself of the said liberty by filing such representation along with requisite documents, proceedings pursuant to impugned notice dated 10.11.2025 shall remain deferred until the representation is duly considered.

¶3The petitioner submitted its representation on

17.02.2026. In response, respondent, by communication dated 07.04.2026, raised certain queries and called upon the petitioner to submit its

reply within 14 days. Thereafter, on 20.04.2026, the petitioner addressed a communication to respondent seeking an extension of 15 days to enable it to collate the necessary information, obtain appropriate legal advice, and submit a comprehensive reply.

¶4Though there was no response received from the respondent accepting the request made by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner assumed that such adjournment has been granted since it was not refused and as such, submitted its reply on

28.04.2026. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 23.05.2026 at Annexure-Q has been passed.

¶5The submission of Kum. Jinita Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the representation dated

17.04.2026 and explanation dated

28.04.2026 have not been considered while passing the impugned order dated 23.05.2026. It is further submitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner, thereby rendering the impugned order violative of the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed.

¶6Sri.Aravind Kamath., learned ASGI instructed by Sri.Aditya Singh., would submit that there being violations which have been admitted by

petitioner, there is nothing much to be considered by the respondent. On the basis of the said admitted violations, the penalty has been proposed and levied. If the petitioner were to make payment of the said penalty levied, the application for renewal would be processed and renewal would be granted. There is not much of an adjudication which is required to be done in respect of the representation and the explanation furnished by the petitioner after such an admission has been made.

¶7Heard Kum.Jinita Chatterjee., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Aravind Kamath., learned ASGI appearing for respondent. Perused papers.

¶8Having considered the submission of Sri.Arvind Kamath., learned ASGI, what is seen is in the explanation submitted on 28.04.2026 there are various submissions which have been made by the petitioners. The direction issued by this Court was for the petitioner to submit a representation, which was to be duly considered and necessary orders passed by the respondent.

¶9Needless to say, whenever any penalty orders or the like are passed, it would be but required that those orders are accompanied by reasons which could

stand the test of an appeal or a challenge made thereto. Though, Sri.Arvind Kamath., learned ASGI submits that the representation and explanation of the petition have been considered in the order dated

23.05.2026, ex-facie the order does not reflect such consideration and reasons why representation and/or the explanation has been rejected when there are several contentions which have been raised by the petitioner.

¶10Insofar as submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a personal hearing has not been offered though requested by the petitioner. A perusal of the order passed in WP No.39055 of 2025 does not require any personal hearing to be offered to the petitioner and as such the petitioner who has been granted indulgence by the coordinate Bench of this Court cannot expand the scope of the said order seeking for personal hearing. What is required is for the representation and explanation to be considered by respondents and necessary orders to be passed.

¶11In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be said to be in compliance with the order passed by this Court in WP No.39055 of 2025 and as such this Court passes the following;

ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A certiorari is issued, order dated 23.05.2026 issued by Respondent No.1 at Annexure-Q is quashed. iii. Respondent is directed to consider representations of petitioner dated

17.02.2006 and explanation dated

28.04.2026 and pass a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11