ORDER
Somasundaram, J.
1. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. According to the petitioner, the activities of the society are secular and its objects are to help, encourage and educate the socially, economically and culturally oppressed by convening conference and to make them aware of their legal rights and liberties and their responsibilities under the Constitution. The other objects of this society are to organize educational and health programmes and for this purpose the society gives education through village organisations including night classes for Harijan children and by conducting health programmes. With the above objects and purposes the petitioner-society runs 82 night classes in 36 harijan colonies in North Arcot District. The petitioner society is also running two tailoring centres. The petitioner-society was formed in the year 1981 and from the inception the petitioner-society is receiving contributions and donations from similar organisations situated abroad. In the year 1985, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter called the Act, was amended. Before the amendment to Section 6 if made incumbent on the petitioner to submit periodical statements to the Central Government about the foreign contribution receipts and their expenditure. After the amendment, Section 6(1) of the Act bars any society or organisation to receive foreign contributions except the society which is registered with the Central Government and agrees to receive the foreign contribution only through any one of the branches of the bank as may be specified in the application for registration. After amendment of the Act the petitioner-society applied for registration as per rule 3 to the Central Government on 28.12.84. The Central Government passed an order dated 17.10.1985 stating that the Government has decided not to register the petitioner-society under Section 6(1) of the Act. The order dated 17.10.1985 runs as follows:-
With reference to your application dated 28.12.1984, on the above subject I am directed to say that on careful consideration of your application, it has been decided not to register your Association under Section 6(l) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976. You are therefore requested to obtain prior permission under Section 6(1A) of the Act in case you want to accept any foreign contribution.
The above order dated 17.10.1985 is challenged in W.P.No. 10533 of 1986. Pursuant to the order dated 17.10.1985 the petitioner-society submitted an application before the Central Government under Section 6(1A) of the Act on 20.2.1986 seeking permission of the Central Government for receiving foreign contribution, which were already sanctioned, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Bread for the World, West Germany and another sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- from I.C.C.O., Holland. But, the respondents refused to grant permission in their order dated 15.7.1986. The order dated 15.7.1986 runs as follows:
With reference to your letter dated 20.2.1986 forwarding application in form FC.1A seeking prior permission of the Central Government under Section 6(1A) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 for acceptance of foreign contribution of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be received from Bread for the World, West Germany and Rs,4,50,000- from ICCO, Holland, I am directed to say that, the Central Government after careful consideration of your application, has decided not repeat not, to grant permission for acceptance of the above said foriegn contribution, by the Little Brothers! of the Oppressed, Vellore.
The order dated 15.7.86 is challenged in W.P.9647/86.
2. Mr. R. Krishnamurthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that no reason whatever has been given in the orders challenged in the writ petitions for refusing permissions for registration under Section 6(1) of the Act and for refusing prior permission under Section 6(1A) of the Act for acceptance of foreign contribution of a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- and since, the impugned orders are totally arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, they are liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further referred to Section 21 of the Act and submitted that as an appeal lies against the order passed by the Central Government under Section 6(1) and 6(1A) of the Act unless the orders passed under Section 6(1) and 6(1A) of the Act refusing permission contain reasons, the aggrieved party cannot effectively challenge the orders in the appeal. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions K. Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu; and 1939 Action for Welfare and awakening in Rural Environment (Award) a Registered Society represented by its Chairman Appellant v. Government of India rep. by Secretary, Minuter of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Anr. Respondents III A.L.T.505. On the other hand, Mr. S. Veeraraghavan, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel would submit that Section 6 of the Act deals with the power of registration of the Central Government and such power of the Central Government to register a society under Section 6 also includes the power to refuse registration. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that in appropriate cases, where national security or public interest is involved, the disclosure of reasons for refusing permission to register a society under Section 6(1) of the Act or for refusing prior permission to a society under Section 6(1A) of the Act can be withheld. The learned Counsel for the respondents also submitted that the exercise of powers by the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, because, the respondents only after the consideration of the materials available on record and for valid reasons passed the orders refusing permission, which are challenged in these writ petitions.
3. Before considering the contentions of the counsel for the parties it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. The relevant portion of Section 6(1) of the Act runs as follows:
Certain Associations and persons receiving foreign contribution to give intimation to the Central Government.
(1) No association (other than an organisation referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section (5) having a definite cultural, economic, educational, religious or social programme shall accept foreign contribution unless such Association,…
(a) registers itself with the Central Government in accordance with the rules made under this Act; and
(b) agrees to receive such foreign contributions only through such one of the branches of a bank as it may specify, in its application for such registration.
Section 6(1A) of the Act reads as follows:-
Every Association referred to in Sub-section (1) may, if it is not registered with the Central Government under that sub section, accept any foreign contribution only after obtaining the prior permission of the Central Government and shall also give within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, an intimation to the Central Government as to the amount of foreign contribution received by it, the source from which and the manner in which such foreign contribution was received and the purposes for which and the manner in which such foreign contribution was utilised by it.
Section 10 of the Act deals with the powers of the Central Government to prohibit receipt of foreign contributions etc., in certain cases. The relevant portion of the proviso to Section 10 runs as follows:
Provided that no such prohibition or requirement shall be made unless the Central Government is satisfied (sic) of foreign contribution by such association or person or class of persons (sic) the acceptance of foreign hospitality by such person, is likely to affect prejudicially (i) the sovereignty and (sic) of India; or (ii) the public interest; or ** ** ** (v) harmony between religious, racial, linguistic or regional, groups, castes or communities.
4. No doubt, the normal rule is where an authority makes an order in excerise of quasi-judicial functions it must record reasons in support of the order it makes. However, recording of reasons in support of the order passed by the authority is not necessary in case where the divulgence of the reasons in the order passed by the authority may not be in public interest. Again even though the order passed by the authority may not be a speaking order, the court exercising powers and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can refer the relevant records for determining whether the order passed by the authority in question has been passed for valid reasons. If the records also do not contain any reason to support the order passed by the authority, then, it will be a case of arbitrary exercise of power and such order is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the orders challenged in these writ petitions cannot be held invalid on the sole ground that they do not contain reasons to support them particularly when it is the case of the respondents that the disclosure of reasons in the impugned orders for refusing permission was withheld in public interest. This view of mine derives support from the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in “Mariu a Registered Society rep. by its Secretary v. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and Ors.” (W.P.No. 4204/86 dated (sic) 3.1987). In the decision referred above the A.P. High Court while, dealing with the question whether the order passed by the Central Government under Section 6(1) of the Act should be held as invalid on the ground that it is not a speaking order has observed as follows:
No doubt, the order does not disclose the reasons. Reasoned order is sine quo non for application of mind, lest smacks of arbitrary exercise of power. It is well settled that normally the order must contain reasons on the basis of which refusal has been made so that the court could see when assailed as to what are the circumstances under which the authority was persuaded to refuse registration. But in given circumstances, keeping in view of the security and integrity of the nation or in the public interest or friendly relations with foreign countries and other cognate grounds, reasons can be withheld from disclosure. But the record must contain the reasons for refusal of registration. If the record also does not contain any reasons, then it would be a case of arbitrary exercise of power. Therefore it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
It is also relevant to refer to the following observations of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shanmugham Chettiar v. Somasundaram (DB) (83 Law Weekly 441) which reads as follows:
There is ample authority for the view that even though the order of the Government by itself may not be a speaking order, the High Court while dealing with the matter in writ proceedings for the issue of certiorari, can refer to the connected file as well as the affidavits supplied by the Government for determining whether the order in question had been passed for valid reasons by the executive authority or whether it had passed it arbitrarily and on irrelevant consideration.
The Division Bench of this Court in the above case refers to another decision of this Court in Ramanathan Chettiar v. Board of Revenue 1963 II MLJ 320 where this Court took a similar view that while it was desirable that the authority exercising quasi(sic) functions should give its reasons in support of the order which it makes, failure to give reasons will not invalidate the order and it is open to the Court to call for the records so that it may be satisfied whether the power had been exercised justly and reasonably and not arbitrarily.
4A. The next question we have to examine is, whether the records in this case disclose reasons for refusing registration of the petitioner-society under Section 6(1) of the Act and whether such reasons are relevant for refusing registration of the petitioner-society under Section 6(1) of the Act. When the petitioner submitted an application for registration under Section 6(1) of the Act, the Ministry asked for a report about the activities of the petitioner- society from the Intelligence Bureau, which disclosed that the activities of the petitioner-society cannot be described as purely charitable and philanthrophic but tend to create class consciousness and foment social unrest. On receipt of the report from the Intelligence Bureau, the Petitioner’s application for registration under Section 6(1) was considered by the concerned authority viz., the Secretary and he has taken the decision to refuse registration of the petitioner-society on the ground that some of the activities of the petitioner- society are political in nature and likely to create law and order problem. Therefore, the records in this case disclose that there are valid reasons in support of the order dated 17.10.1985 for refusing registration of the petitioner-society under Section 6(1) of the Act, which is challenged in W.P.No. 10533 of 1986.
5. Subsequently on 20.2.1986 the petitioner submitted an application under Section 6(1A) of the Act for prior permission for receiving contribution of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Bread for World, West Germany and another sum of Rs. 4,50,000 from ICCO, Holland. On receipt of the said application submitted by the petitioner-society under Section 6(1A) of the Act, the authorities called for a report from the Intelligence Bureau and the Report of the Intelligence Bureau disclosed that the training programmes of the petitioner-society include dissemination of polital idelogist movements and, therefore, they cannot be described as purely charitable and philonthrophic, but tends to create class- consciousness and foment social unrest. On receipt of the said report of the Intelligence Bureau the application of the petitioner-society for prior permission under Section 6(1A) of the Act was considered by the authorities and on the basis of the report of the Intelligence Bureau they have taken the decision to refuse prior permission to the petitioner-society for receiving contribution of a sum of Rs,2,00,000/- from Bread for World, West Germany and Rs. 4,00,000/- from ICCO, Holland. The said decision of the authorities was also approved by the minister concerned on 2.7.1986 and, therefore, it has to be concluded that there was an application of mind by the authorities concerned before taking a decision to refuse permission under Section 6(1A) and that the records contained valid reasons to support the order dated 15.7.1986 challenged in W.P.No. 9647 of 1986. Inasmuch as the records produced on behalf of the respondents disclosed valid reasons to support the orders passed by the authorities under Section 6(1) and under Section 6(1A) of the Act, such orders cannot be challenged in these writ petitions on the ground that they are not speaking orders and that they are wholly arbitrary and opposed to the principle of natural justice.
6. The decision and AIR 1976 SC 981 relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts, because in the above decisions, the Court was not concerned with the question whether the orders passed by the authorities, must contain reasons even where the divulgence of the reasons in the orders has to be withheld in public interest. The decision in Action for Welfare of Awakening in rural environment (AWARE) v. Government of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs 1989 III ALT 585 also will not apply to the facts of the present case. In that case, the authorities after granting permission to register the petitioner- society under Section 6(1) of the Act without giving an opportunity to the petitioner-society to offer its explanation as to why the provisions of Section 10(b) of the act should not be invoked, passed an order under Section 10(b) requiring the petitioner-society in that case to obtain prior permission of the Central Government before accepting foreign contribution. In the above circumstances, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the effect of putting the society in prior permission category under Section 10(b) has the effect of de-registration and as such it amounts to punishment and before imposing such punishment it is just and necessary that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner-society to offer its explanation as to why the provisions of Section 10(b) should not be invoked bringing the petitioner in that case into the prior permission category.
7. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner personally went to Delhi on 20.2.1986 and presented the application under Section 6(1A) of the Act at the office of the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs; thus under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act, an application for grant of prior permission should be disposed of within 90 days and under the proviso to the said sub Section a further period of 30 days is allowed where the applicant is informed of any special difficulties by reason of which the application could not be disposed of within the said period of 90 days. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that though the application of the petitioner society was received by the respondents on 20.2.1986 the order challenged in W.P.No. 9647 of 1986 was passed only on 15.7.1986 after the expiry of the period of 145 days and that the respondents have no right to pass the impugned order rejecting permission after 120 days from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s application for prior permission under Section 6(1A) of the Act. The learned Counsel also submitted that in such circumstances, in law, it is deemed that permission has been accorded to the petitioner-society to accept the foreign contribution and the respondents are bound to send communication to the petitioner to that effect. I am unable to accept the above contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate its case that the petition under Section 6(1A) was presented before the authorities on 20.2.1986 . A perusal of the relevant file shows that the application dated 20.2.1986 from the petitioner-society for prior permission under Section 6(1A) to accept the foreign contributions of Rs. 6,50,000/- was received by the Ministry only on 4.4.1986. Therefore, the application received on 4.4.1986 can be disposed of before 3.7.1986 as per the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act. The petitioner-society was informed by the letter dated 2.7.1986 issued by the respondents that due to special circumstances it was not possible for the respondents to dispose of the application within 90 days from the date of receipt of the same in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Therefore, the further time limit of 30 days was available to dispose of the application, i.e, the respondents had the time till 2.8.1986 to dispose of the application. However, the respondents have passed the orders on 15.7.1986 itself and informed the petitioner-society that the permission has not been granted for accepting a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- as foreign contribution. In these circumstances, there is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order challenged in W.P.No. 9647 of 1986 has been passed after 145 days from the date of receipt of the application.
8. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the orders challenged in these writ petitions warranting interference. There is no merit in the writ petitions and they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.