HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8257/2025 Shri Khandelwal Vaishya Mahasabha Higher Education Fund, Having Address At Ganga Mandir, Station Road, Jaipur- 302006, Through Its Trustee And Chief Functionary Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta Son Of Shri Ram Gopal Gupta R/o A-33, Near Jagatpura Railway Crossing, Vidhyanagar, Jagatupra, Jaipur- 302017. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ministry Of Home Affairs, Foreigners-Ii Division (Monitoring Unit), Major Dhyanchand National Stadium, New Delhi- 110001, Through Director. 2. Ministry Of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division (Fcra Wing), Major Dhyanchand National Stadium, New Delhi- 110001, Through Deputy Secretary. 3. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division (Fcra Wing), New Delhi- 110 001. 4. Bank Of Baroda, Through Branch Manager, Kishore Nivas, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302002. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar Mr. Ram Naresh Vijay with Mr. Ayush Kumar Jain Mr. Priyank Samwaria JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/08/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other thereby quashing the Impugned (2 of 6) [CW-8257/2025] order dated 06.02.2024 issued by the Respondent No.1 along with its consequential effects. b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus of any other thereby directing the Respondents to consider the FCRA registration of the petitioner as per communication dated 07.11.2023. c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other thereby directing the Respondent No.4 to de-freeze and regularise the bank account no.01130100008273 of Petitioner. d) Pass any other order or direction as deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 by which the penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner and the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a charitable institution and is registered under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (for short “FCRA Act, 2010”). Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid registration, to receive foreign contribution, is valid w.e.f. 24.10.2017 till 23.10.2022. Learned counsel submits that the last contribution of Rs. 51 lacs was received by the petitioner on 01.06.2021 and, thereafter, no contribution was received. Learned counsel submits that after expiry of the validity of the earlier registration, the registration of the petitioner was again renewed with effect from 24.10.2022 for a period of five years. Learned counsel submits that all of sudden the order impugned was passed, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner has received foreign contribution of Rs.1,02,82,867/- during the period from 01.04.2022 till 31.03.2023 and it was also alleged that the petitioner has received Rs.2,64,68,220/- as foreign contribution during the period from 01.04.2023 till (3 of 6) [CW-8257/2025] 31.03.2024. Learned counsel submits that prior to reaching of the last date, i.e., 31.03.2024, on 06.02.2024 the order impugned was passed even without waiting for the last date to come. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that prior to passing of the aforesaid impugned order dated 06.02.2024 neither any show cause notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the petitioner was not in a position to submit his reply/stand to clarify the situation before the respondents. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 is not appelable, hence, the same has become final. Learned counsel submits that after passing of the aforesaid order, a detailed comprehensive representation was submitted by the petitioner on 12.03.2024 in the office of the respondents for redressal of his grievances but inspite of passing of considerable time, till date the representation submitted by the petitioner has not been decided by the respondents by any reasoned and speaking order, however, in the meantime, the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen and the petitioner is not in a position to operate its bank account, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that after the expiry of the period of registration, i.e., 23.10.2022, the petitioner has received a huge amount of foreign contribution and the same has been reflected in his bank account. Learned counsel submits that even a notice was given to the petitioner on 07.11.2023, and, thereafter, the petitioner had (4 of 6) [CW-8257/2025] submitted an undertaking before the respondents, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner has not received or utilised any foreign contribution after the expiry of their FCRA registration. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid undertaking of the petitioner is contrary to the amount received and reflected in his bank account. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order was passed on 06.02.2024 directing the petitioner to deposit the compounded amount within a specified period, failing which the renewal of the petitioner’s FCRA certificate shall be declared as non est ab initio. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is a charitable institution having FCRA registration certificate, which was valid for the period from 24.10.2017 till 23.10.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that after expiry of the term of FCRA registration, i.e., on 23.10.2022, the petitioner has not received any foreign contribution and has not utilised the same, while it is the case of the respondents that after expiry of the term of FCRA registration, the petitioner has received foreign contribution during the period from 01.04.2022 till 31.03.2023 and also from 01.04.2023 till 31.03.2024. 8. This Court is not going into the factual aspect of the matter as to whether after expiry of the FCRA registration, the petitioner has received any foreign contribution amount or not and as to whether he has utilised the said amount or not. (5 of 6) [CW-8257/2025] 9. Now, the question which remains for consideration of this Court is as to whether prior to passing of the order impugned, i.e., 06.02.2024, was it necessary for the respondents to issue show cause notice to the petitioner. 10. Perusal of the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 indicates that certain allegations have been levelled against the petitioner with regard to receipt of foreign contribution, after the expiry of their FCRA registration. The petitioner was directed to deposit the compounded amount within a period of 45 days, as the act of the petitioner was found to be in violation/contravention of Section 11 of the FCRA Act, 2010. It was also mentioned in the impugned order itself that in case the violation is not compounded by the petitioner within a period of 45 days, by paying requisite penalty, renewal of FCRA certificate of the petitioner shall be declared as non est ab initio. 11. This fact is not in dispute that prior to passing of the aforesaid order, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Since, the petitioner has failed to comply with the aforesaid order within the above stipulated time and he has not deposited the compounding amount, in terms of Section 11 of the FCRA Act, 2010, renewal certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled and his entire bank account has been frozen. 12. Section 14 of the FCRA Act, 2010 deals with the provisions of cancellation of certificate and as per Section 14(2) of the FCRA Act, 2010 no order of cancellation under this Section shall be made unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (6 of 6) [CW-8257/2025] 13. This fact is not in dispute that prior to passing of the impugned order neither any show cause notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and therefore, the stand of the petitioner was not called for. 14. By not following the mandate contained under Section 14(2) of FCRA Act, 2010, the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice. 15. It is settled proposition of law and demand of the principles of natural justice that before passing any adverse order against a person, at least an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to such person, which has not been given in the instant case relating to the petitioner. 16. On this count alone, the instant writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 06.02.2024 is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside. The respondents shall be at liberty to issue a notice/show cause notice to the petitioner, who will be at liberty to pass fresh orders, after receiving reply from the petitioner. 17. It is needless to observe that fresh order would be passed by the respondents within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 18. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/139