JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ritesh D. Patadia for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Bhaskar Sharma for respondent no.1.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has tendered draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Bhaksar Sharma waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent bank.

4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notice dated 08.07.2020 and subsequent actions of the respondent bank in declaring the petitioner as willful defaulter and the publication which has already been made in the newspaper vide Willful Defaulter Notice dated 10.06.2021 to publish the photograph in daily newspaper along with publication of photograph duly published on 14.08.2021 and in its website.

5. After filing of the petition, the Review Committee has passed the order confirming the decision of Committee of Executive on Willful Defaulters of the respondent bank to declare the petitioner as willful defaulter and therefore, the petitioner has also prayed to quash and set aside the Letter of Review Committee dated 15.04.2021.

6. Brief facts of the case are as under :

6.1) The petitioner was the erstwhile director of the Company – M/.s Roselabs Ltd. and resigned from the Directorship of the Company on 26.07.2019.

6.2) It is the case of the petitioner that though he has nothing to do with the Company or with the respondent bank, as the petitioner had never signed any security documents or executed any guarantee deeds for the alleged credit facility, the respondent Bank has unnecessarily dragged him and illegally declared him as a willful defaulter vide the publication of the Willful Defaulter Notice dated 10.06.2021, which has not only hampered the business of the petitioner but also affected the petitioner both economically and socially and the respondent Bank has tarnished the image and reputation of the petitioner.

6.3) It is the case of the petitioner that he was not an active director of the company and on 26.07.2019, the petitioner resigned from the company.

6.4) It is the case of the petitioner that the company in which the petitioner was earlier the director was dealing with the respondent bank since more than 10 years and operating its various accounts with the respondent bank. The respondent bank had sanctioned various credit facilities on the basis of financial strength and performance of the company way back in the year 2008. However, on account of deep recession in the global market, the company which was involved in highly specialized Pharma product faced bad weather in said product since 2013 and therefore, due to loss of investment and lack of financial assistance to meet with working capital deficit of the company, the company started incurring losses in business on account of which the respondent bank has classified the account of the Company as Non Performing Asset (NPA) in the year 2013 without extending badly needed financial assistance timely and without considering the proposal of re-schedulement and restructuring of the credit facilities.

6.5) It is the case of the petitioner that after a period of 7 years from the declaration as NPA, the respondent bank has declared the petitioner as willful defaulter without following the guidelines and circulars of RBI.

6.6) It is the case of the petitioner that the Company has not committed default of utilizing the finance from the respondent Bank for any other purpose except for which the finance was availed and even, the company has not diverted the funds for other purposes and the Company has not deployed borrowed funds for purpose/activities or creation of assets other than those for which the loan was sanctioned as alleged by the respondent Bank. The petitioner company has not d