JUDGMENT :- 1. Challenging the impugned order passed by the respondents dated 31.12.2004 having reference No.11/21022/ 67(231)91 FCRA II (MU), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, on the ground that the said order was passed under Section 10(a) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, prohibiting the petitioner's society namely, 'Reach in the Nilgris', from receiving any foreign contribution and thereby the basic necessities of life such as, food, shelter, clothing and education to the society's orphans consisting of almost 2000 students, have been affected. Therefore, it was contended that the impugned order passed under Section 10(a) of the Act, prohibiting, all of a sudden, from receiving foreign contribution is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a society Registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, with an object to provide food, shelter, clothing and education to the orphans, semi-orphans and children from broken families. In fact, the destitute children, who are not having proper care from the family and fatherless and motherless children are also taken care of by the petitioner's society and they are provided with food, cloth, shelter and education. Though few other societies associated with the Reach International were also registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the petitioner alone was receiving contribution from Reach International and the same was in operation since 1990. Only after the funds channelled through the petitioner society, the REACH international has established hostels in Coonoor, Nilgiris District, Moolakkaraipatti, Chettimedu and Salaiputhur in Tirunelveli District, and Tirupathur in North Arcot District. The above mentioned various hostels have been established to accommodate about 2000 orphan children. In support of the said submissions, photographs of the destitute children looked after by the petitioner at the various hostels, are filed along with the writ petition. 3. Initially, all the foreign contributions were routed through the petitioner's account in Indian Bank at Coonoor, Nilgiri District. Subsequently, a general body meeting of the society was conducted on 15.03.1992 and an authorisation was given to one Mr.Ravi Gnanakkan, and Mr.I.Margo to operate the account at Coonoor as joint Signatories. The statement from this account was also sent regularly to the Government of India, Home Ministry, and only during an internal audit undertaken by Mr.Ajay Singh, the petitioner's internal auditor, grave irregularities committed by Mr.I.Margo were noticed. The statement from this account was also sent regularly to the Government of India, Home Ministry, and only during an internal audit undertaken by Mr.Ajay Singh, the petitioner's internal auditor, grave irregularities committed by Mr.I.Margo were noticed. Subsequently, a General Body meeting was conducted on 27.01.2002, where, a resolution was passed to revoke the authorisation given to Mr.I.Margo and Mr.Ravi Gnankkan, and thereby, they were not permitted to operate the foreign contribution account of the petitioner's society. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that taking into account the above irregularities, the 1st respondent, all of sudden, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2004, exercising the powers conferred under Section 10(a) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, prohibiting all the financial flow of contributions from any outside organisation to the petitioner's society and as a result of which, the petitioner's society is not able to run any one of the schools established by them and that they are unable to give basic necessities of life such as, food, shelter, clothing and education to the orphans, semi-orphans and children admitted from broken families. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that without giving any show cause notice, the respondents have passed the impugned order and therefore, he prayed that the impugned order has to be set aside on that score alone. 4. In reply, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents, submitted that the impugned order is not a final order. After passing of the impugned order, the petitioner was given opportunity to make representation within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. He further submitted that if the petitioner's society submitted an explanation within the stipulated time, the respondent would have been in a position to conduct an enquiry by knowing the explanation and thereby, they would have followed the principles of natural justice. 5. The learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted that paragraph No.9 of the averments made in the supporting affidavit is clearly showing that there was an internal audit conducted by the internal Auditor of the petitioner's society and grave irregularities committed by Mr.I.Margo were found. Thereafter, a general body meeting was held on 27.01.2002, where, a resolution was passed revoking the authorisation given to Mr.I.Margo and Mr.Ravi Gnanakkan to operate foreign contribution account of the petitioner's society. Thereafter, a general body meeting was held on 27.01.2002, where, a resolution was passed revoking the authorisation given to Mr.I.Margo and Mr.Ravi Gnanakkan to operate foreign contribution account of the petitioner's society. Taking into account the above irregularities, the respondents found that there was a contravention of the provisions of Section 4 & 13 and Rule 8(1) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, by the petitioner's society, and therefore, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondents, prohibiting the petitioner's society from receiving the foreign contribution, which cannot be said to be arbitrary. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Admittedly, though few other societies were established with the petitioner's society, the petitioner's society alone was receiving foreign contribution from Reach International, which is global charitable organisation having its presence in Spain, Canada, Germany, France, England and other parts of the world under the name of REACH. Therefore, the petitioner's society has obtained Foreign Contribution Registration on 03.02.1992 under Registration No.075970077, from the Government of India, Home Affairs, for easy flow of foreign exchange to them. In fact, the General Body of the petitioner society holding a meeting on 15.03.1992, authorised Mr.Ravi Gnanakkan and Mr.I.Margo to operate the account at Indian Bank, Coonoor, as joint signatories. The statements from this account were sent regularly to the Government of India, Home Ministry. The Government of India, Home Affairs also had granted registration on 03.02.1992 under Registration No.075970077. Whileso, during an internal audit held by the petitioner's internal auditor, some irregularities committed by some of the officers of the petitioner's society came to light. As a result thereof, even the operation of the bank account in Coonoor was also stopped. However, by giving subsequent letter to transfer the bank account to Punjab National Bank, Chennai, a request was made, thereafter, Mrs.Sulochana was elected as a Secretary of the petitioner's society. These are all internal in fights between the petitioner's society and subsequent to that, they have reached an amicable settlement. 8. However, by giving subsequent letter to transfer the bank account to Punjab National Bank, Chennai, a request was made, thereafter, Mrs.Sulochana was elected as a Secretary of the petitioner's society. These are all internal in fights between the petitioner's society and subsequent to that, they have reached an amicable settlement. 8. In the meanwhile, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 31.12.2004 directing the petitioner not to receive any further foreign contribution with immediate effect under Section 10 of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976, alleging violation of Sections 4 and 13 of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976. On account of the impugned order, nearly 2000 orphan children at the 9 hostels run by the petitioner's society are suffering to a great extent, because the entire operation of the petitioner's society will come to a grinding halt. In this context, the impugned order passed under Section 10(a) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, prohibiting the REACH in the Nilgiris, Plot No.99, Sai Deep Apartments, VGP Saravanan Nagar, Madambakkam, Chennai, including its branches and units under the public interest to accept any further foreign contribution from the date of issue of the order, is in total violation of the principles of natural justice, because, by straight away passing the impugned order dated 31.12.2004, the interest of the orphan children was put at peril by deprivation of food, cloths, books and education to them, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. In view of the fact that the contention of the respondents that the petitioner's society shall make a representation within 30 days from the date of the impugned order also cannot be countenanced, for the reason that the petitioner being a registered society under the Societies Registration Act and obtained Foreign Contribution Registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, the respondents ought to have called for proper explanation to the alleged irregularities stated supra, and only thereafter the impugned order had to be passed. Further, the impugned order prohibiting foreign contribution would certainly affect the management of the petitioner's society in giving basic necessities to the orphans living in that society. Therefore, prima facie, it is clear from the impugned order that the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice. 9. In this regard, it is useful to refer to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nagarjuna construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Therefore, prima facie, it is clear from the impugned order that the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice. 9. In this regard, it is useful to refer to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nagarjuna construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 493(SC), wherein it has been held that the obligation to act fairly on the part of the administrative authorities was evolved to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice and further observation of paragraph 33 to 36 are extracted as under:- 33. Natural justice is another name for common sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. 34. The expressions ‘natural justice’ and ‘legal justice’ do not present a watertight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant’s defence. 35. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all civilised States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the ‘Magna Carta’. The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to ‘vocate, interrogate and adjudicate’. In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was thus stated: ‘… even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. “Adam” (says God), “where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat”?’ Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. 36. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. 10. In view of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court as above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and accordingly, the same is set aside. The respondents are directed to issue proper notice calling upon the petitioner to submit the explanation and thereafter the respondents shall proceed in accordance with law. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, M.P.Nos.2282 of 2005 and 199 of 2006 are closed. No costs.