A writ court should not entertain a petition against a show cause notice unless it suffers from jurisdictional error or has been issued with a pre-meditated mind.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed this petition against a show cause notice dated 02.06.2020 and subsequent notice pertaining to hearing for wilful defaulter dated 07.12.2022, issued by respondent No.1.

2. The facts of the case are that on 06.10.2009, the petitioner had executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 appears to have stood as a guarantor, mortgaging petitioner's property. According to the petitioner, on 23.11.2013, a credit facility to the tune of Rs.15 crores was sanctioned by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. On 25.11.2013, the respondent No.1-Bank confirmed that the liability of the petitioner will be to the extent of value of the flat bearing No.A-1/303 at Safdarjung Enclave.

3. It is seen that on 25.08.2015, an adhoc limit of Rs.2 crores was sanctioned by respondent No.1-Bank to the principal borrower i.e. respondent No.2. Accordingly on 25.08.2015, loan documents were executed by the principal borrower i.e. respondent No.2 for the adhoc limit.

4. It appears that the respondent No.1-Bank thereafter, sent a `demand and recall notice' to the principal borrower as well as the petitioner.

5. On 28.06.2016, the account in question was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). It is seen that on 02.07.2016, the respondent No.1 served upon the petitioner a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. In addition, the notice was also served upon all the concerned.

6. On 17.10.2016, an original application was filed by respondent No.1 before DRT II as OA No.823 of 2016. On 22.11.2016, respondent No.7 filed a police complaint against respondent No.1-Bank at Police Station Parliamentary Street, New Delhi. On 19.01.2017, the auction notice was issued by respondent No.1-Bank. The petitioner challenged the auction notice issued by respondent No.1-Bank by way of SA No. 25/2017, which is stated to be pending before the DRT.

7. The case of the petitioner is that one of his properties i.e. A-1/303, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi came to be auctioned without intimation to him. A written complaint was made by the DGM, State Bank of Travancore (now merged with Respondent No. 1 - State Bank of India) to the CBI against respondent No. 2-borrower, petitioner and other respondents herein. Accordingly, FIR No. RC 219 2017 E 0018 dated 09.08.2017 was registered against the petitioner and other concerned.

8. The CBI filed its final report before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi.

9. After issuance of the show cause notice dated 02.06.2020, the petitioner made a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman dated 05.02.2021, regarding the mala fide actions of the respondent No.1-Bank bearing Complaint No.202021013022044.

10. The respondent No.1-Bank however, sent reply to the said complaint on 05.02.2021. The RBI also responded to the said complaint, stating therein that the complaint was found to be incomplete. On 07.12.2022, respondent No.1-Bank, once again, sent a notice to the petitioner to appear for personal hearing before declaring the petitioner as a wilful defaulter.

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the entire action of the respondent Bank suffers with mala fide intent and the same is without jurisdiction. According to him, the petitioner agreed to be a guarantor to the extent limited to the value of the mortgaged property situated at A-1/303, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and nothing more. He further states that once the said property was auctioned by respondent No.1-Bank, violating the rules and regulations, the instant show cause notice to declare the petitioner as a wilful defaulter is the mockery of the rule of law. He further states that even the guidelines of RBI issued in terms of master circular dated 01.07.2015, are also violated. According to him, even in the CBI case, when the chargesheet was filed, the name of the petitioner was not included in the list