Allahabad High Court
Prateek Raj Singh vs The Union Of India And Another on 28 January, 2020
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana, Ravi Nath Tilhari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2873 of 2020 Petitioner :- Prateek Raj Singh Respondent :- The Union Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravinath Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
Sri Arun Kumar Pal, Advocate has filed his appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the Court today which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Pal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer to :
i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/set aside the impugned list of disqualified directors, to extent that it includes the name of the petitioner, or ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to use his digital signature certificate and director identification number, and iii. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent no. 2 to ensure the petitioner is not prevented from being appointed as Director of 'active' companies rather than the defaulting company, or iv. issue any such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
v. award cost of the writ petition.
Upon perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the documents appended thereto, it transpires that the petitioner is the Director of M/S Holistic Integrator Service Private Limited and by the impugned list dated 29.11.2018 issued by the respondent no. 2, he along with Directors of several other companies have been disqualified. The name of the petitioner appears at serial no. 12710 in the impugned list which was uploaded on the website of respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition). The aforesaid action appears to have been taken by the respondent no. 2 in the exercise of his power under Section 164 (2) (a) of The Companies Act, 2013.
The action of the respondent no. 2 has been challenged on the ground that the same is unconstitutional, irrational, unreasonable and manifestly arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
Record further shows that the same issue which is involved in the instant writ petition was the subject matter of the bunch of writ petitions, leading petition whereof was Writ - C No. 12498 of 2019 (Jai Shankar Agrahari Vs. Union of India And Another) which were partly allowed by a common judgement and order dated 16.1.2020 passed by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this writ petition may also be disposed of on the same terms and conditions subject to which Writ - C No. 12498 of 2019 (Jai Shankar Agrahari Vs. Union of India And Another) and other connected writ petitions were decided.
Sri Arun Kumar Pal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of on the same terms and conditions subject to which Writ - C No. 12498 of 2019 (Jai Shankar Agrahari Vs. Union of India And Another) and other connected writ petitions were decided and party allowed.
Order Date :- 28.1.2020 KS