JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA SARKAR, J.

1. The writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the State Bank of India declaring the petitioners’ bank account as fraud. The ground for challenge is that personal hearing was not given to the petitioner. The second ground is that the forensic audit report that was relied upon, had not been supplied.

2. The petitioner places emphasis on the issue of violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court is being invoked as the principle of audi alteram partem being an essential element of any decision making process, had been not followed.

3. It is also submitted that the petitioner ceased to be a Director of the bank/borrower company from 2018 and the declaration of NPA was made later. Thus, the bank could not proceed against the petitioner who was neither a whole time director nor a promoter at the relevant time.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate, representing the petitioners that the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble High Court had repeatedly held that any document relied on by the Bank, should be supplied to the borrower and the borrower must be given an opportunit