1. Heard Sri Venkatesh Gupta, representing Sri K.Ramakrishna, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vijayabhaskar Mula, representing respondents 1 and 2.

2. Sri Venkatesh Gupta, representing Sri K.Ramakrishna, would contend that in the light of Sections 235, 236 and 237 of the Companies Act, 1956, appropriate directions can be issued even by a Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The counsel had also taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit filed in response to the affidavit filed by the petitioner.

3. On the contrary. Sri Vijayabhaskar Mula had taken this Court through the specific stand taken in the counter affidavit by the Registrar of Companies incharge, the 2nd respondent and would contend that the remedy, if any, available to the petitioner is to invoke the Company Law Board, in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and hence the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Incidentally, the learned counsel also touched the merits and demirts of the matter.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

5. The writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to appoint a competent person as investigator for investigating the affairs of the 3rd respondent Company from 1995 onwards and to file a report before this Court and to pass suitable orders.

6. It is averred that the petitioner and his relatives invested collectively Rs.5,00,000/- approximately in the stock market in the year 1995. The petitioner is an educated unemployee at relevant point of time and agreed to become the Fund Manager. It is further stated that in the year 1995 a stockbroker in Vijayawada (A.P) approached the petitioner and explained the prospectus of the 3rd respondent company. The petitioner bona fide believed the statements of the said broker and purchased 15000 shares of the 2nd respondent company having registered folio numbers TAL-0000499 etc., at the face value of Rs.10/- of each share. The petitioner had invested Rs.1,50,000/- in the year 1995. For the last few years the petitioner has not received any annual report nor notice of any extraordinary annual general body meeting of the company. The said facts were brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent i.e. the Registrar of the Companies, Hyderabad by the petitioner vide a letter dated 18.06.2004 and 25.10.2006. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent had referred the said complaint to the 3rd respondent Company and washed off his hands without any action for the deliberate omissions/commissions of the 3rd respondent Company under the Companies Act, 1956.

7. It is further stated that through reliable sources the petitioner came to know that the 3rd respondent Company had become allegedly sick and proposed a scheme before Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) New Delhi for revival of the Company. It is further stated that the petitioner and his relatives had invested their hard earned money of Rs.1,50,000/- in the year 1995, till today they could not get even a single rupee as return, on the top of it, the value of the shae in the market is Rs.0/-. It is further stated that on 01.05.2007 the petitioner through his counsel sent a notice to the 1st respondent with the above said facts and sought investigation by a competent person to investigate the affairs of the Company from 1995 onwards. Further specific stand had been taken that the 1st respondent ought to have noticed that the promoters/directors of the 3rd respondent company had formed the said company prima facie only for a fraud and to siphon off public funds worth crores of rupees. Since the petitioner and his relatives had invested hard earned money, they are interest