Court rules deactivation of Director Identification Numbers without authorization illegal

The court held that the deactivation of Director Identification Numbers (DINs) under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, without explicit authorization was arbitrary and illegal. It emphasized the need for adherence to statutory provisions, principles of natural justice, and alignment with judicial precedents. The court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the orders deactivating the DINs and directing restoration of the same. The judgment highlighted the requirement of a hearing before deactivation, prospective application of relevant sections, and the necessity of an application for deactivation in line with rule 11 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the deactivation of Director Identification Numbers (DIN) under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. Applicability of the principles of natural justice in the deactivation process.
3. Retrospective versus prospective application of Sections 164 and 167 of the Companies Act, 2013.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) in deactivating DINs without an application.
5. Consistency with judgments from other High Courts on similar matters.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the deactivation of DIN under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013:
The petitioners challenged the deactivation of their DINs by the ROC under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, arguing that this section only disqualifies directors in the defaulting company and not in other companies. The court agreed, noting that Sections 164 and 167 of the Act do not explicitly authorize the deactivation of DINs. The court held that the deactivation of DINs based on these sections was "arbitrary and illegal," and only rule 11 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014, provides for such deactivation under specific conditions.

2. Applicability of the principles of natural justice in the deactivation process:
The petitioners contended that the principles of natural justice were violated as no opportunity for a hearing was provided before deactivating their DINs. The court found merit in this argument, emphasizing that rule 11(e) of the Rules of 2014 mandates an opportunity for hearing before deactivation. The court noted that the show cause notices issued did not mention deactivation of DINs, and the final orders were based on different grounds, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

3. Retrospective versus prospective application of Sections 164 and 167 of the Companies Act, 2013:
The petitioners argued that Sections 164 and 167 should be applied prospectively, not retrospectively. The court concurred, stating that unless a statute explicitly provides for retrospective application, it should be applied prospectively. The court noted that Section 164 became effective on 1st May 2014 and Section 167 on 7th May 2018. Therefore, defaults occurring before these dates should not attract disqualification under these sections.

4. Jurisdiction and authority of the ROC in deactivating DINs without an application:
The court examined rule 11 of the Rules of 2014, which requires an application for deactivation of DINs. The court found that no such application was made in this case, and the ROC acted suo motu. The court held that the ROC's action was beyond its jurisdiction and authority, as rule 11 does not contemplate suo motu deactivation of DINs without an application and verification process.

5. Consistency with judgments from other High Courts on similar matters:
The petitioners cited several judgments from other High Courts, which had set aside similar orders of deactivation of DINs. The court acknowledged these precedents, noting that different High Courts had consistently held that DINs cannot be deactivated under Sections 164 and 167 of the Companies Act, 2013. The court listed several such judgments, including those from the Madras, Gujarat, Delhi, Karnataka, Allahabad, and Calcutta High Courts, and aligned its decision with these rulings.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders passed by the ROC that deactivated the petitioners' DINs. The court directed that any necessary follow-up action be taken to restore the DINs. The judgment emphasized adherence to statutory provisions, principles of natural justice, and consistency with judicial precedents.

---