The main legal point established is that the writ petitioners are entitled to opportunity of hearing before the Defaulter Identification Committee based on the mechanism for identification of Wilful Defaulters and the serious consequences of declaring wilful defaulter as established in the State Bank of India vs. Jah Developers Private Limited and Others case.

JUDGMENT

Prakash Shrivastava, CJ. - These appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09th of July, 2021 passed in WPO 233 of 2021 whereby the writ petitioner has been granted an opportunity to appear before the Review Committee. aPOT 111 of 2021 is at the instance of the writ petitioner whereas aPOT 121 of 2021 is at the instance of the bank.

2. The writ petition was filed challenging the decision of the Wilful Defaulter Committee of the bank dated 09th of april, 2021. The case of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the petitioner No. 1 had availed certain credit facilities from the consortium of lenders including the appellant bank and the other two petitioners are the personal guarantors and directors of the petitioner No. 1. Proceedings were initiated before Wilful Defaulter Committee, and show-cause notices were issued which were replied by the writ petitioner and thereafter the notice of personal hearing dated 14th of October, 2020 and 28th of October, 2020 were issued which were also replied by the writ petitioner. a fresh show-cause notice dated 09th of March, 2021 was issued and thereafter on 22nd of March, 2021 a notice of personal hearing was given which was replied by the writ petitioners. The opportunity of personal hearing could not be availed by the petitioner and the Willful Defaulter Committee had taken the decision dated 09th of June, 2021 declaring the writ petitioner as willful defaulter. aggrieved with the same they had approached the writ Court.

3. The order of the learned Single Judge records the submission of the bank that the writ petitioners can avail the personal hearing before the Review Committee accordingly the writ petition has been disposed of giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner to appear before the Review Committee.

4. Submission of the learned Counsel for the bank is that the Master Circular of the RBI does not provide for any opportunity of hearing before the Review Committee, therefore, no such direction could have been issued by the learned Single Judge. He has also disputed the statement made by the Counsel for the bank before the learned Single Judge in this regard. Further submission has been made that an opportunity of hearing was given to the writ petitioners before the defaulter Committee which was not availed, therefore, they are not entitled for any further indulgence.

5. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has also questioned the order of the learned Single Judge by submitting that notice of personal hearing was given during the second wave of COVID Pandemic and the writ petitioner being the senior citizen could not avail it and their prayer for joining virtually from their home was not allowed. He further submits that declaring as wilful defaulter has serious consequences and that order of learned Single Judge giving opportunity of hearing before the Review Committee takes away right of the petitioner to convince the Defaulter Identification Committee. He submits that the writ petitioners are entitled to hearing before the Defaulter Identification Committee. He has also submitted that the Defaulter Identification Committee had passed the order mechanically and that the main issue about the decision of the join vendors raised by the writ petitioner in the reply to the show-cause notice has been completely sidetracked by the Committee.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. The Master Circular of the RBI dated 01st of July, 2014 on willful defaulter provides for mechanism for identification of wilful defaulter as under:

'3. Mechanism for identification of Wilful Defaulters

The mechanism referred to in paragraph 2.5 above should generally include the following:

(a) The evidence of wilful default on the part of the borrowing company and its promoter / whole-time director at the relevant time should be examined by a Committee headed by an Executive Director or equivalent and consisting of t