Kerala High Court
Abdul Hameed Pallipathoomban ... vs Union Of India on 29 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021/7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 23579 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
ABDUL HAMEED PALLIPATHOOMBAN KUNHEEDU,
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMMADHU,
PALLIPATTU THOOMBAN HOUSE,
THALAKKADATHUR P.O., CHERIYAMUNDAM,
MALAPPURAM - 676 103.
BY ADVS.
M.P.SHAMEEM AHAMED
CYRIAC TOM
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS,
'A' WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN,
RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2 THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES,
(KERALA AND LAKSHWADEEP),
COMPANY LAW BHAVAN, BMC ROAD,
THRIKKAKKARA, KOCHI - 682 021.
SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.23579/2021
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021
The writ petition has been filed by the Director of a
Private Limited Company, Xmark Builders and Developers
Private Limited, seeking to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents
to activate the Director Identification Number (DIN) of the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner contends that he was a Director of
the Company and was disqualified from the Directorship of
the Company under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act,
2013 consequent to the failure of the Company to file
Statutory Returns for three years. However, the petitioner
continued to be a Director in view of proviso to Section
167(1). The petitioner resigned as a Director on
01.10.2021. Consequent to such disqualification, the
WP(C)No.23579/2021
respondents have deactivated the Director Identification
Number (DIN) of the petitioner. The deactivation of DIN is
highly illegal and arbitrary in view of the judgment of this
Court in Zacharia Maramkandathil Mohan v. Union of
India [2021 (4) KLT 493], contended the petitioner.
3. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India
representing the respondents would fairly submit that the
issue is covered by the afore judgment of this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel
representing the respondents.
5. In the judgment in Zacharia Maramkandathil
Mohan v. Union of India (supra), this Court held that:
"The Director Identification Numbers
(DINs) of the petitioners allotted under Rule 10
of the Companies (Appointments and
Qualifications of Directors) Rules, 2014 are not
liable to be deactivated or cancelled solely for
the reason that the petitioners stand disqualified
for appointment/re-appointment as Directors of
Companies by operation of S.164(2)".
WP(C)No.23579/2021
In view of the law laid down by this Court in the said
judgment, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ
petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the
respondents 1 and 2 are directed to activate the DIN of the
petitioner.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ncd/28.10.2021
WP(C)No.23579/2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23579/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 MASTER DATA OF THE COMPANY AS
APPEARING IN THE MCA WEBSITE.
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE LIST DATED 08/11/2021
PUBLISHED IN THE MCA WEBSITE SHOWING
THE DIN OF THE PETITIONER AS
DISQUALIFIED.
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE RESIGNATION, LETTER DATED
01ST OCTOBER 2021 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE EXHIBIT P1
COMPANY.
Exhibit P4 SCREENSHOT OF THE STATUS OF THE DIN
OF THE PETITIONER AS PROVIDED IN MCA
WEBSITE.
