JUDGMENT :

1. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Arjun Joshi, learned counsel appearing for Ms. Gargi R. Vyas, learned counsel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the present petitions are taken up for final hearing.

3. As the identical issue involved in both the aforesaid petitions, the same is decided by way of common order and Special Civil Application No. 16268 of 2020 is treated as lead matter.

4. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs, which reads thus:

"(A) to quash and set aside the notice dated 14.08.2020 of the Respondent Bank;

(B) direct the Respondent Bank, its servants and agents to act in accordance with law and to refrain from taking any steps or further steps in the matter of proceedings against the Petitioner No.1 as a willful defaulter;

(C) direct the Respondent Bank to produce the records of the Respondent relating to possible classification of the Petitioners as willful defaulter;

(D) to direct that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application the proceedings pertaining to classification of the Petitioners as willful defaulter be stayed;

(E) To pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(F) To provide for the costs of the present Special Civil Application."

5. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are stated thus:

5.1. The petitioners have challenged the illegal actions undertaken by the respondent in sheer contravention of the terms and conditions of the Master Circular namely "Master Circular on Willful Defaulters' dated 01.07.2015 issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), whereby, the respondent has threatened to declare the petitioners as willful defaulter by issuing impugned show cause notice dated 14.08.2020 which was received by the petitioner herein through e-mail on 18.09.2020.

5.2. It is stated that, in view of above, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Heard Mr. Ayaan A. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

6.1. Mr. Ayaan A. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned show cause notice dated 14.08.2020, alleges that the petitioners have committed defaults in repayment of the amount due and payable to the respondent bank under the Facilities Agreement. It is further stated that, the petitioner no.1 has been making regular payments to the respondent Bank, with the last payment being made on 18.10.2019, and accordingly, the petitioner no.1 in good faith and bona-fide has made payment, despite the fact that actions/inactions on the part of the respondent were causing immense distress and financial loss to the petitioner no.1. While referring various other submissions, main bone of the contention of Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the impugned show cause notice can be said to be vague and it does not refer the necessary particulars to facilitate the petitioner to answer the same.

6.2. During the course of hearing, it was also submitted by Mr. Patel, learned counsel that the petitioners have replied to the said show cause notice dated 14.08.2020, however, the respondent bank has failed to provide necessary documents/documents as sought for by the petitioners.

6.3. In view of above, Mr. Patel, learned counsel submitted that the show cause notice being devoid of any clarity and being vague, required to be quashed and set aside.

7. Heard Mr. Saurabh N. Soparkar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Arjun Joshi, learned counsel for Ms. Gargi Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank.

7.1. Mr. Saurabh N. Soparkar, learned senior counsel raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of