1 2025:CGHC:5999 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2533 of 2019 1 - Shantanu Vyas S/o Captan Subhash Vyas Aged About 35 Years R/o 261, Shikshak Nagar Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Corporate Affairs, A Wing Shashtri Bhawan, Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 2 - Registered Of Companies Office Of Registered First Floor Ashok Pingley Bhawan, Of Municipal Corporationl, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “a) Direct the respondents to reactivate the DSC and DIN number of the petitioners so that they may be able to file the necessary documents and make good the default under section 164(2)(a) and/or b) Strike down the impugned Circulars dated 06.09.2017 (Annexure P/1), and 12.09.2017 (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent and also the list of disqualified directors, so far as it relates to the petitioner, uploaded on the website of Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- respondent no.1 whereby it disqualified several directors across India under section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 as they are unconstitutional, irrational, unreasonable and manifestly arbitrary; and/or c) Strike down the impugned order dated 29.08.18 (Annexure P/3), whereby the Petitioner's company Rajiv Radhika Developers has been stiked off, and/or d) strike down section 164(2)(a) as being unconstitutional under Article 14 & 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of India in so far as it disqualifies any person who has been a director at some point in the past of a defaulting company as the same is irrational, unreasonable and manifestly arbitrary, and/or e) strike down section 164(2) as being unconstitutional in so far as it disqualifies a Director not only from the defaulting Company but also from every other company where he holds the office of a Director; and/or f) read down section 164 along with its effect under section 167(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 to limit the disqualification of the Director to the Company in which the default has happened; and/or g) allow the petitioners to approach the respondents no.2 seeking voluntary striking off the Rajiv Radhika Developers Private Limited and convert the strike of from that under section 248(1) to that under section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.” 2. This writ petition challenges the order of the Registrar, whereby the name of the petitioner was inserted in the list of disqualified Directors w.e.f. 06.09.2017. The disqualification was for a specific period of five years. 3. The writ petition was filed as early as 2019, and the petitioner was granted an interim order in his favour, which is still in force. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that by efflux of time, the period of disqualification has already elapsed, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. According to the respondents, the disqualification against the petitioner as a Director of the two companies in which he held Directorship no longer applies, and the petitioner is entitled to discharge his duties without any disqualification, now that the five year period has passed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is true that the period of five years has already elapsed, the petitioner seeks the protection that the disqualification period should not hinder his ability to have his Director Identification Number (DIN) revived, which had elapsed due to the disqualification period. 6. According to the respondents, since the period of five years already elapsed, and as there was interim protection, he can continue discharging his duties as a Director. 7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the respondents, the present writ petition stands disposed of at this juncture. 8. It is made clear that the disposal of this petition, due to the passage of time, should not come in the way of the petitioner from discharging his normal functions as a Director of the company. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi