JUDGMENT :

Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.

1. This appeal is at the instance of the Writ Petitioner challenging the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 21.03.2022 whereby W.P.O. No 340 of 2022 (Kaustuv Ray Vs. IDBI Bank and others) has been disposed of with certain directions.

2. The facts in a nutshell are that respondent No. 1 herein IDBI Bank Ltd granted working capital facilities to R.P Info Systems Limited of Rs 138 crores. The Company did not adhere to the terms and conditions on which the credit facilities were sanctioned. Rather it defaulted in repayment of the facilities as per agreed terms.

3. The writ petitioner, herein the appellant, one Kaustuv Ray, a promoter/guarantor of M/s R.P Info Systems Limited amongst many others on September 17, 2021 by a notice dated June 16, 2021 issued by respondent bank was asked to show cause and make submissions before the Wilful Defaulter Committee of the bank (First Committee) (hereinafter referred to as ‘WDC’) as to why the appellant’s name should not be included in the list of Wilful Defaulters as per RBI guidelines either in person or in virtual mode by September 24, 2021. The appellant who had failed to intimate the change of permanent address to the respondent Bank did not receive the show cause notice, owing to which responded to the letter on September 20, 2021 requesting respondent No. 1 not to proceed with the hearing.

4. The issuance of the show cause notice by respondent bank was in compliance with the Master Circular no. DBR No. CID.bc.57/20.16.003/2014-15 issued by the Reserve Bank of India on matters related to wilful defaulters. Clause 3 (b) of the Circular provides that if the Committee examining the evidence of wilful default concludes that an event of wilful default has occurred, it shall issue a show cause notice to the concerned borrower along with the promoter/whole time director and call for their submissions. Thereafter, considering their submissions, it shall issue an order recording the fact of wilful default and the reasons for the same. An opportunity should be given to the borrower and the promoter/whole time director for a personal hearing if the Committee feels such an opportunity is necessary.

5. The respondent No. 1 thereafter through an email to the appellant on October 16, 2021 offered an opportunity for personal hearing either physically or through video conferencing before the WDC on October 26, 2021.The appellant replied to the same by calling upon respondent No.1 to furnish a copy of show cause of June 16, 2021 as per RBI regulations, to provide additional documents to effectively meet with the entirety of the allegations levelled in the show cause notice and sought for adjournment of hearing. The personal hearing before the WDC was further extended to November 30, 2021 by letter dated November 20, 2021 by the respondent Bank.

6. Being aggrieved with the purported show-cause notice dated June 16, 2021 the appellant/writ petitioner preferred a writ petition (WPA No. 1207 of 2021) wherein the Learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent Bank to handover copies of relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent Bank handed over the Transaction Audit Report (hereinafter referred to as ‘TAR’) from the year 01.04.2008 to 03.04.2020 to the appellant.

7. However, on account of not providing the requisite documents by the respondent Bank the appellant/writ petitioner filed another writ petition wherein the Learned Single Judge was pleased to pass an order not in favour of the appellant. Thus, being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant.

8. Submissions of the Learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner are :

I. The impugned notice dated June 16, 2021 was not in conformity with the guidelines of the Master Circular relating to the classification of wilful defaulter.As according to its Clause 2.6, the said circular cann