INDIA AWAKE FOR TRANSPARENCY SHRISHTI CRESCENDO 24 Vs. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition at the instance of the petitioner assails the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in and by which the license issued to the petitioner was revoked/cancelled by the 2nd respondent by virtue of powers provided u/s. 8 (6) of the Companies Act.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, as could be culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the petition is that the petitioner was formed on 6/8/2012 as a not for profit company for charitable purposes as contained u/s. 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, presently Sec. 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. It is the case of the petitioner that it is barred from paying any dividend and that the company is operating mainly for public interest and in satisfaction of its purpose, the petitioner has been diligently working through its volunteers and escalating matters of significant public interest, more especially violations relating to Coastal Regulation Zone Regulation and Development Control Regulation of Chennai Metropolitan Development Agency in the Acquifer Recharge Zone. In this regard, the petitioner had filed six public interest litigations before the Delhi High Court, of which petitions are pending adjudication.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that having come to its knowledge relating to a large scale fraud involving defalcation of about Rs.50,000.00 Crores by the 3rd respondent by way of income tax evasion, the petitioner has been pursuing the said issue for retrieving the said amount. It is the averment of the petitioner that the said defalcation had arisen in view of the merger approval obtained by the 3rd respondent from the High Court of Karnataka, on the basis of misrepresentation and collusion with the 4th respondent, then functioning as Registrar of Companies, Karnataka. It is the further averment of the petitioner that unable to bear the pressure mounted on the 3rd respondent by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, with a view to prevent the petitioner from proceeding any further with its endeavour to unearth fraudulent acts, with the connivance of the 4th respondent, who is functioning as the 2nd respondent, sought to cancel the permission granted to the petitioner u/s. 8 of the Companies Act.