JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. In these intra-court appeals the order dated 10.02.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2518 of 2022 is under challenge whereunder the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Special Civil Application and affirmed the impugned orders dated 01.09.2021 (Annexure-N) passed by second respondent, order dated 02.02.2021 (Annexure-L), notices/communications dated 18.09.2021/28.08.2020 (Annexure-O) issued by second respondent.

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

2. Parties are referred to as per their rank before the learned Single Judge. Petitioners are the Ex-Directors of Sanghavi Exports International Private Limited (at present under liquidation) which was then engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of cut and polished diamond and diamond studded jewellary. Said company had availed certain financial facilities from the group of consortium members wherein the Bank of India was the lead bank and second respondent was one of the consortium member. Said company defaulted in repayment of loans and came to be classified as a Nonperforming Asset (NPA) by the second respondent. Second respondent has initiated recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of dues by filing an application under Section 19 of DRT Act. The lead bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short) which is said to have been challenged by the petitioners before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad.

3. The lead bank also initiated insolvency proceedings before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which ordered for liquidating the borrower company and Liquidator came to be appointed. Again the lead bank is said to have initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act calling upon the borrower to repay the outstanding amount of 822.30 Crores and challenge to said action is said to be now pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad.

4. Second respondent has issued a show cause notice dated 28.08.2020 to petitioners and others as to why the names of petitioners should not be included in the list of ‘Willful Defaulters’ as per Reserve Bank of India (for short ‘RBI’) guidelines. There were exchange of communications pursuant to the said show cause notice between the parties and after affording personal hearing, order dated 02.02.2021 (Annexure-L) came to be passed. Second respondent declared the petitioners as ‘Willful Defaulters’ on the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice. Fifteen days time was granted to the petitioners to have their further submission - representation for consideration by Review Committee on Willful Defaulters (‘WDRC’ for short). Accordingly, petitioners submitted a representation dated 15.02.2021 reiterating the reply given to the show cause notice and relied upon its earlier representations. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 by order dated 01.09.2021 has confirmed the decision of WDC and declared the petitioners as Willful Defaulters. Pursuant to the same, petitioners have been called upon to pay the outstanding amount to the second respondent bank within 15 days failing petitioners were informed that bank would proceed to publish the names, photographs and other details of petitioners in the newspapers/magazines.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, Special Civil Application came to be filed and as already observed hereinabove same has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by arriving at a conclusion that there was breach of both clauses of the circular dated 01.07.2015 issued by RBI namely Clause 2.2.1 (c) and (d) by the petitioners. It has been further held that while exercising the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the writ Court would not sit in appeal over the findings of fact arrived at by WDIC or WDRC and hence, held that the impugned orders did not warrant interference. Hence, these intra-court appeals.

6. We have hear