IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.6149 of 2026

18.03.2026 Between:

Eragudla Raju Yadav …Petitioner AND The Union of India, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Shastry Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Marg, New Delhi and another.

…Respondents

ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent-

authorities in showing him as “disqualified director” on their Organizational Web Portal or Website, instead of showing the petitioner as an active director. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s disqualification period was until 22.03.2019 and though, the disqualification period ended in 2019 itself, the online portal of the respondent authorities show that the petitioner is still disqualified, whereas the petitioner has active directorship and therefore, entitled to restoration of his DIN.No.00492258

2. Heard Mr. K.R. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Kranti Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, both the learned counsel submit that the subject matter is covered by the Common Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5422 of 2018 &

Batch dated 18.07.2019.

4. This Court allowed the W.P.No.5422 of 2018 & Batch by considering the Rules for allotment of DIN, and also various case-law on the subject matter in Yashodhara Shroff Vs. Union of India¹, Gaurang Balvantlal Shah S/o Balvantlal Shah Vs. Union of India² and Bhagavan DasDhananjaya Das Vs. Union of India³ etc., and also Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013, observed as follows:-

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 2^nd respondent is directed to activate the DINs of the petitioners, enabling them to function as Directors other than in strike off companies.

32. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the 2^nd respondent from taking appropriate action in accordance with law for violations as envisaged under Section 164(2) of the Act, giving the said

2 r/Special Civil Application No.22435 of 2017 & Batch dated 18.12.2018

provisions prospective effect from 01.04.2014 and for necessary action against DIN in case of 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.

5. Accordingly, in light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.5422 of 2018 & Batch, as above, the present Writ Petition also stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA Date: 18.03.2026 ds