Point of Law: Clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11, extracted above, provides for the circumstances under which the DIN can be cancelled or deactivated. The said grounds, are different from the ground envisaged under Section 164 (2) (a) of the Act. Therefore, for the alleged violation under Section 164 of the Act, DINs cannot be cancelled or deactivated, except in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. In all these writ petitions, petitioners were Directors of various Companies and have been declared disqualified to continue as Directors of all the Companies in which they were Directors, under Section 164 (2) of Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), for a period of five years. Petitioners, therefore, have challenged declaration made by Registrar of Companies, U.P., Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as “ROC”) publishing notice of such disqualification of petitioners specifying the period of five years and in most cases it is from 01.11.2016 to 31.10.2021 while in some cases period of five years varies but total period of disqualification is five years. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of aforesaid declaration made by ROC. They have also sought a mandamus directing respondents to reactivate petitioners' Director Identification Number (hereinafter referred to as 'DIN') and restore their names on the Roll of Directors.

2. The issues raised in all these writ petitions are common and facts are also similar, hence as agreed by learned counsel appearing in all these writ petitions for respective parties, all these petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. For the purpose of delving into pleadings and facts, with consent of parties, we have taken Writ Petition No.12498 of 2019 (Jai Shankar Agrahari vs. Union of India and another) as the leading 'writ petition' and this writ petition hereinafter would be referred to as “WP-I”.

4. W.P.-I has been filed by sole petitioner Jai Shankar Agrahari praying for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing declaration made by ROC under Section 164 (2) of Act, 2013 disqualifying him as Director of Companies from 01.11.2016 to 31.10.2020 i.e. for a period of five years. Petitioner Jai Shankar Agrahari has also prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing respondents to reactivate petitioner's DIN No.03266735 and DSC number and restore his name on the Rolls of Director.

5. Petitioner, Jai Shankar Agrahari, was Director of various Companies, (Private and Public) and details thereof are as under:

6. The case set up by petitioner of W.P.1 is that all the aforesaid Companies were registered with ROC. Three Companies namely, Sansar Agrotech Land Developers Company Limited; Sansar Core Retails Business Private Limited; and, Sansar Mart Retails Private Limited, committed default by not submitting financial statements and returns for a consecutive period of three years. Petitioner thus stood disqualified to act as “Director” under Section 164 (2) of Act, 2013. This disqualification has been applied to all other Companies in which petitioner was “Director” though those Companies are/ were not in default. Before disqualifying petitioner as “Director” under Section 164 (2) of Act, 2013, no show cause notice or opportunity has been given, facts have not been verified and in a mechanical manner, petitioner's status has been shown as a “disqualified Director” and his DIN No.03266735 has been made inactive and/ or suspended. Section 164 (2) (a), which not only disqualifies a “Director” in respect of Defaulting Companies but extends the same to other Companies which have not committed default, as such it is irrational and unreasonable. It is in violation of f