JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(i) To declare that Rule 3A and 23A of Ext.P3 Rules is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) To declare that Ext.P3 Rules is applicable only to the Companies which have been registered after the date of commencement of Ext.P3 Rules.

(iii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P7.

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1^st respondent to notify the petitioner company as a Nidhi Company under Ext.P2 Rules.”

2. The learned Counsel on both sides submit that the issue is covered by a judgment of this Court in Annamanada Gramakshemam Nidhi Limited v. Union of India [2024 (3) KHC 429), paragraph 18 of the said judgment, which is the operative portion, reads as follows:

“18. Since there is hardly in dispute at the bar, that reasonable restrictions are permissible, if not necessary, I deem it appropriate that these writ petitions be ordered with the following directions;

a) The challenge to the amendments to Section 406 of the Companies Act, 2013 , as also to the