Raghava Reddy Konda vs. Union Of INDIA And Another

Held

The Court allowed the Writ Petition. The decision was based on the submission by both the petitioner's counsel and the Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents, that the issue in this Writ Petition was squarely covered by the Common Orders of the High Court in WP No.5422 of 2018 & batch, dated July 18, 2019. For the reasons stated in the aforementioned Common Order, this Writ Petition was also allowed. The Court stated there would be no order as to costs. As a consequence, any miscellaneous applications pending in this Writ Petition were disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, Raghava Reddy Konda, a Director, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated July 21, 2017, issued by the Registrar of Companies (2nd Respondent). This notice deactivated his Director Identification Number (DIN) 05223856 and listed him as a disqualified Director on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (1st Respondent). The petitioner argued that this action illegally restrained him from filing statutory returns for other companies where he is a director. He sought a writ of mandamus to declare the notice illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice, and to set it aside. He also sought to be permitted to continue as a director without interference and to have his DIN reactivated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the deactivation of the petitioner's Director Identification Number (DIN) and his listing as a disqualified Director by the Registrar of Companies, based on the notice dated July 21, 2017, is illegal, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the Companies Act, 2013, and Rule 11 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014? 2. Whether the said action violates the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the notice and consequent deactivation of his DIN were illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the Companies Act, 2013, and Rule 11 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014. He further argued that the action violated the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, thereby restraining him from performing his directorial duties. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the lis in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the Common Orders of this Court in WP No.5422 of 2018 & batch, dated July 18, 2019.