AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Lingaraja Rath, J.—The Central Government is in appeal against the order of the learned single Judge holding that a notice to be required to be given to show cause prior to any order is passed u/s 10(b) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976. The learned single Judge in passing the order relied upon the judgment in W.P. No. 9677 of 1985 dated 19-12-1985 in which similar view had been taken.
Mr. R.S. Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government has brought to our notice the fact that the order of the learned single Judge in the earlier case was subjected to Civil Appeal No. 3608 of 1989 in which the Apex Court passed the following order:-
" In SLP (Civil) No. 2693 of 1990, this Court directed that the period of three months indicated by the High Court for issuing fresh notice shall commence from the date of this Court. In the same terms, we direct that the appellant-Government shall have three months to issue a fresh notice commencing from to-day. In all other respects, the order of the High Court is kept undisturbed, subject to the condition that the respondent shall not disburse any amount which has been received without prior permission."
It is, however, the submission of Mr. Murthy that before the SLP was disposed of, the Central Government had also filed W.A. No. 16 of 1987 challenging the very same order and that the appeal was dismissed for default on 13-3-1997. It is his further submission that the order passed in the Civil Appeal while the appeal against the order of the learned single Judge was pending before the Division Bench, is not one which is to be taken note of. We are unable to appreciate the submission. If at all two appeals were filed by the Central Government in the same matter, one before the Supreme Court and the other before the Division Bench, it was clearly an act of judicial demeanour on the part of the Government and it was the duty of the Central Government to bring to the notice of the Supreme Court of its appeal before the Division Bench and that it was not pressing the Civil Appeal if it so wanted. Once the appeal before the Supreme Court which had been properly filed was disposed of with directions, the appeal before the Division Bench has to be treated as non est. and of no effect. It is hence to be taken that the decision of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 9677 of 1985 was left untouched by the Supreme Court. It is, however, Mr. Murthy''s submission that since the order of the Supreme Court stated as leaving the judgment of the learned single Judge as undisturbed, it cannot be said to have confirmed the views of the learned single Judge. The submission does not impress us as the tenor of the very order of the Supreme Court shows that the Supreme Court would have gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge and upheld the view taken by him and has only given the benefit of extended period to the Central Government to issue notice.
Mr. Murthy then submits that the question as to the necessity of a notice may be independently examined by this Division Bench. Even though we think such an exercise is not necessary, in view of the order of the Apex Court yet we have looked into the provisions and we also agree with the view of the learned single Judge. We would elaborate the reasons only in support of the view taken by the Apex Court. It is the argument before us that Section 10 of the Act does not in terms stipulate the giving of a notice before an order is passed u/s 10(b) directing prior permission to be obtained for acceptance of foreign contributions. Hence, it is contended that the judicial verdict to require such a notice to be given is beyond the contemplation of the Act. The contention of the learned Counsel is wholly misconceived. Undoubtedly, requiring the recipient of the contribution to obtain prior permission is an act affecting the right of the recipient to receive the contribution. Since such a civil right is affected, the principles of natural justice require a notice to be given before an order affecting his interest is passed. It is now far too well settled in law that provisions of statutes are to be read in consonance with the principles of natural justice unless requirements of natural justice are waived either by the express provisions of the statute or by necessary implications. In other words, wherever a statute requires an order to be passed affecting the civil right of a person, the statute has to be read as requiring compliance with natural justice as an in-built provision in it and a notice has to be issued to the person concerned to show cause against the proposed action. Such requirement can be taken as not necessary when the law itself declares that it shall not be necessary to do so or giving such a notice would defeat the very purpose of the Act in which event it has to be taken, by way of necessary implication, that the requirement is not possible to be complied with. The very scheme of the present Act shows prior permission to receive contribution as not been an essential characteristic of the law. Section 4 of the Act provides a bar to receive foreign contribution to the category of persons enumerated therein. Section 5 is a provision laying down that no organisation of political nature, not being a political party shall accept any foreign contribution except with the permission of the Central Government. Section 6 stipulates that where an organisation is not one which can accept, as u/s 5(1), foreign contribution only with the prior permission of the Central Government, it cannot receive the contribution unless it has registered itself with the Central Government in accordance with the rules made under the Act and has agreed to receive such contribution only through such one of the branches of a Bank as it may specify in its application for the registration. Thus, the trilogy of Sections 4, 5 and 6 show a scheme of some category of persons or organisations as being debarred to receive contribution, some who are to receive contribution with the prior permission of the Central Government and some who can receive contribution without any prior permission, but only when they register themselves for the purpose and duly nominate the branch of the Bank through which the contribution is to be received. Section 10 is an exception vesting authority in the Central Government firstly to prohibit any association, apart from those specified in Section 4, from accepting any foreign contribution and secondly directing any association which is otherwise entitled to accept foreign contribution on satisfying the terms of Section 6, to receive such contribution only with the prior permission of the Central Government. Hence when an order is passed by the Central Government requiring prior permission to be obtained by an association specified u/s 6, it obviously affects the right of such association which is otherwise entitled to accept the contribution only upon registering itself and selecting the bank through which it shall receive contribution. As we have observed earlier, such an order to be passed by the Government deprives it of its right guaranteed u/s 6 and hence cannot be passed without a notice to show cause against the proposed action even though provision of such a notice is not expressly made in the section itself.
Without adverting to a plethora of citations on the question, we may just refer to the decision in The Government of Mysore and Others Vs. J.V. Bhat and Others, wherein the Court observed, "it is only where there is nothing in the stature to actually the giving of an opportunity to be heard, but, on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imposed itself necessarily implied an obligation to hear before deciding that the "audi alteram partem" rule could be imported. The nature of the hearing would of course vary according to the nature of the function and what its just and fair exercise required in the context of the rights affected."
In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.