Telangana High Court

Mukka Srinivas vs Union Of India on 1 July, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION Nos. 7149, 7158, 7160, 7166, 7243, 7284,
 7543, 7558, 7582, 7930, 7969, 7974, 7981, 8012, 8031,
 8082, 8085, 8093, 8308, 8317, 8342, 8345, 8350, 8359,
 8372, 8385, 8395, 8398, 8420, 8425, 8440, 8448, 8455,
 8456, 8459, 8463, 8474, 8488, 8507, 8552, 8628, 8631,
     8636, 8666, 8689, 8694, 8705, 8706 OF 2019

COMMON ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

counsel Mrs. N.V.R. Rajyalakshmi, representing the learned Deputy

Solicitor General of India Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, for the

respondents and perused the material made available on the record.

With the consent of both the learned counsel, these writ petitions

are taken up for final disposal.

2. In all these writ petitions, interim directions were issued to

restore the Director Identification Number (DIN) of the petitioners,

who are Directors in active companies.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that pursuant

to the interim orders passed by this Court, the Director

Identification Number (DIN) of the petitioners was restored and

interim orders of this Court are complied with. Subsequently, this

Court vide common order dated 11.10.2018 passed in W.P.

No.17409 of 2018 and batch disposed of several writ petitions

making the interim orders in the writ petitions as final order.

::2::

4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in similar set of

facts and circumstances, this Court by common order dated

18.07.2019 passed in W.P. No.5422 of 2108 and batch allowed the

writ petitions and thereafter, following the same, several batch of

writ petitions were disposed of by way of common order passed in

W.P. No.16063 of 2019 dated 29.10.2019 and batch. Hence,

it is submitted by the learned counsel on either side that these writ

petitions may also be allowed in terms of the common order dated

18.07.2019 passed in W.P. No.5422 of 2018 and batch.

5. For the sake of convenience, relevant paras No.30 to 34 of the

common order dated 18.07.2019 passed in W.P. No.5422 of 2018

and batch are extracted hereunder:

"30. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the judgment referred to supra, the deactivation of the DINs of the petitioners for alleged violations under Section 164 of the Act, cannot be sustained.

31. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders in the writ petitions to the extent of disqualifying the petitioners under Section 164(2)(a) of the Act and deactivation of their DINs, are set aside, and the 2nd respondent is directed to activate the DINs of the petitioners, enabling them to function as Directors other than in strike off companies.

::3::

32. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the 2nd respondent from taking appropriate action in accordance with law for violations as envisaged under Section 164(2) of the Act, giving the said provision prospective effect from 01.04.2014 and for necessary action against DIN in case of violations of Rule 11 of the Rules.

33. It is also made clear that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in striking off their companies under Section 248 of the Act, they are at liberty to avail alternative remedy under Section 252 of the Act.