The main legal point established is that the Review Committee must pass a reasoned order on the representation made by the borrower, and the challenge should include the decision of the Identification Committee.

JUDGMENT :

1. Two writ petitions have been taken up for analogous hearing as they involve similar issues. Both the writ petitioners have challenged a decision of the Review Committee established under the provisions of the Master Circular on Willful Defaulters issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The Company enjoying the credit facilities from UCO Bank has filed W.P. No. 381 of 2018. For the sake of convenience it is referred to as the first writ petition. The guarantors of such credit facilities have filed W.P. No. 401 of 2018. For the sake of convenience it is referred to as the second writ petition.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the first writ petition has submitted that, the Company enjoyed credit facilities from UCO Bank. The Company faced proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) before the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi. In such proceedings, initially, a resolution professional was appointed by NCLT, New Delhi by its Order dated November 14, 2017. Subsequently, a liquidator has been appointed in respect of the affairs of the Company.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the first writ petition has referred to the provisions of the Master Circular on Willful Defaulters of Reserve Bank of India dated July 1, 2015. He has submitted that, the Company was not given any opportunity of hearing either by the Identification Committee or by the Review Committee. He has relied upon the judgment and order dated November 5, 2019 passed in W.P. No. 1399 (W) of 2019 (Pawan Kumar Patodia & Ors. v. Union Bank of India & Ors.), 2019 SCC Online Cal. 611 (Atlantic Projects Ltd. & Ors. v. Allahabad Bank & Ors.) and the judgment and order dated May 8, 2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 476 of 2019 (State Bank of India v. M/s. Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) in support of his contentions that, a notice of hearing by the Review Committee to the petitioner is mandatory. Since no notice was given, the impugned decision of the Identification Committee is bad in law. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision of the Review Committee and submitted that, the decision itself, is uninformed with reasons. The order of the Review Committee merely reiterates what the Identification Committee allegedly held. Application of mind of the Review Committee is not apparent from the Order Sheet of the Review Committee. Therefore, according to him, the Order of the Review Committee should be quashed.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for UCO Bank has questioned the locus standi of the person verifying the writ petition. He has submitted that, the writ petition is affirmed by the authorised signatory of the resolution professional of the Company. Since there is a liquidator appointed over the affairs of the Company and since the liquidator is not prosecuting the petition, the writ petition should be held as not maintainable.

5. Referring to M/s. Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra), learned Advocate appearing for UCO Bank has submitted that, the Review Committee did not have the benefit of such judgment and order to modulate its affairs. The ratio laid down in M/s. Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) should not be applied to test the decision of the Review Committee. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that, the decision of the interim Committee is not under challenge in the present writ petition. He has referred to the various grounds of challenge made in the writ petition and has submitted that, since the challenge is limited to the decision of the Review Committee and since, the Review Committee did not have the benefit of M/s. Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) on the date of taking of the decision, the same should not be faulted. The entire proceedings under the Master Circular on Willful Defaulters should not be set aside.

6. Learned Advocate appearing in support of the second writ petition has submitted that, the petitioners were sought to be proceeded under the Maste