The Calcutta High Court set aside a July 2026 order refusing renewal of a foreign contribution certificate, holding that the authority’s refusal was jurisdictionally defective and violated natural justice, despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Darjeeling Mary Ward Social Centre, is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. It also holds a valid certificate of registration under Section 12 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA), dated 6 August 2021, valid for five years. As the certificate approached expiry, the petitioner applied for renewal within the statutory six-month window.
Key Facts
- 6 August 2021: Certificate of registration issued under Section 12 of the FCRA, valid until 5 August 2026.
- Early 2026 (within six months of expiry): Petitioner's renewal application filed under Section 16 of the FCRA.
- 28 July 2026: Jurisdictional authority issued an order refusing renewal, invoking Section 12(2) instead of Section 16.
- 20 August 2026: Writ petition (W.P.A. 1736 of 2026) heard before Justice Aniruddha Roy, Calcutta HC.
- 20 August 2026: Judgment delivered.
Procedural History
- 6 August 2021: Certificate of registration granted.
- Early 2026: Renewal application submitted.
- 28 July 2026: Impugned order refusing renewal.
- 20 August 2026: Writ petition filed and heard; judgment delivered on the same day.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioner: Argues that renewal must be decided under Section 16, that the authority failed to record satisfaction of mind, and that a personal hearing is required under natural justice.
- Respondent (Union of India & Ors.): Contends that the authority acted within its discretion, that the alternative remedy under Section 32 bars the writ, and that no hearing is statutorily mandated.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks quashing of the July 28, 2026 order, a direction to the Central Government to reconsider the renewal application, to grant a hearing, and to pass a reasoned order within a specified time.
The Legal Issue
The central question is whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained to challenge the refusal of renewal of an FCRA certificate when an alternative statutory remedy exists, and whether the authority must record satisfaction of mind and afford a hearing as part of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner relied on Section 16(1) which obliges the Central Government to make an enquiry and be satisfied that the applicant fulfills the conditions of Section 12(4) before renewing the certificate.
- Citing the principle that a jurisdictional error cannot be cured by an alternative remedy, the petitioner argued that the order was issued under the wrong provision (Section 12(2)) and therefore void.
- Emphasised that natural justice requires a personal hearing when the authority’s satisfaction is based on material not previously considered.
For the Respondent
- Asserted that the authority’s discretion under Section 16 is unfettered and that no statutory requirement exists for a prior hearing.
- Relied on the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 32 of the FCRA, arguing that the writ court should defer to that process.
- Maintained that the refusal was based on material indicating unutilised foreign contribution, which is a ground for denial under the Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by extracting the statutory framework governing renewal of an FCRA certificate. Section 16(1) mandates that the Central Government may, before renewal, make an enquiry to satisfy itself that the applicant has fulfilled the conditions of Section 12(4). The Court noted that while the discretion to refuse renewal is statutory, it is subject to the condition that the authority’s satisfaction must be recorded on the basis of material before it.
"the satisfaction required to be recorded on the basis of the available materials or on the basis of violation of any provision of the Act or the Rules, such exercise is absent in the impugned order, save and except, mentioning of some vague and bald finding and thereby refusing to grant the renewal."
The Court distinguished the view that the existence of an alternative remedy bars a writ. Relying on Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer and earlier precedents, the Court held that where a jurisdictional error is apparent on the face of the order, the writ court may intervene irrespective of alternative remedies. The refusal under Section 12(2) was a misapplication of the statute; the correct provision for refusal is the second proviso of Section 16(3), which requires a recorded satisfaction of mind and, where necessary, a hearing.
The Court further examined the principle of natural justice. It observed that the authority’s discretion, though statutory, is not unfettered; the authority must provide an opportunity of hearing when the material on record is insufficient to form a satisfactory conclusion. The Court quoted the judgment that “the provision for compliance of natural justice is built in and has to be read as embodied under this provision.”
Having established that the impugned order suffered from an ex facie jurisdictional error, the Court concluded that the writ petition was maintainable. It rejected the respondent’s reliance on the alternative remedy, emphasizing that the statutory scheme does not preclude judicial scrutiny of a jurisdictional defect.
The Verdict
The Court set aside the order dated 28 July 2026, quashed the refusal of renewal, and directed the Central Government to revisit the petitioner's renewal application, to grant a personal hearing, and to pass a reasoned order within six weeks of the judgment. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdictional Errors Are Not Barred by Alternative Remedies
- Practitioners must assess whether the impugned order involves a clear jurisdictional defect; if so, a writ petition can proceed even if a statutory appeal exists.
- Courts will scrutinise the statutory provision invoked; mis-application (e.g., using Section 12(2) instead of Section 16) can render the order void.
Natural Justice Must Be Observed in FCRA Renewal
- Authorities must record a satisfaction of mind based on material before them and must provide a hearing where the material is insufficient.
- Failure to do so constitutes a jurisdictional error, inviting judicial intervention.
Discretion Is Not Absolute
- While the Central Government retains discretion to refuse renewal, that discretion is conditioned on compliance with procedural safeguards.
- Lawyers should compel the authority to disclose the basis of its satisfaction and to afford a hearing before any adverse decision.
