JUDGMENT :

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

2. Learned advocate for the petitioners have tendered draft amendment in each petition. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

3. The existing directors have challenged the same impugned show cause notice as well as subsequent action of the respondent bank of declaring the petitioners as willful defaulters by preferring separate petitions. They have therefore, been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Bhaksar Sharma waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent bank in the respective petitions.

5. For the sake of convenience, facts are recorded from Special Civil Application No.13741/2021.

6. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the impugned show cause notice dated 08.07.2020 and subsequent actions of the respondent bank in declaring the petitioners 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.

7. 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 petitioners as willful defaulter and therefore, the petitioners have also prayed to quash and set aside the Letter of Review Committee dated 15.04.2021.

8. Brief facts of the case are as under:

8.1) The petitioner herein is a Director of the Company – M/s. Roselabs Ltd.

8.2) It is the case of the petitioner that due to the recession and huge loss faced by the company, the account of the company was declared as Non Performing Asset(NPA). Thereafter the company had made all the necessary efforts in order to settle the dispute with the respondent bank in all possible manner.

8.3) In the year 2019, the respondent bank for the first time issued show cause notice to declare the petitioner as willful defaulter, The petitioner went to Mumbai to put his case before the Committee of the Executives.

8.4) It is the case of the petitioner that even after appearing before the Committee on the said date, intentionally the committee had not called the petitioner to put its case before authority. The petitioner also wrote a letter to the bank making complaint against the Committee dated 07.08.2019 and requested for fair adjudication process. However no reply was given by the respondent bank herein.

8.5) It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the respondent bank took no action for almost a year and started afresh arbitrary practice to declare the petitioner as willful defaulter.

8.6) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had participated in management without any malafide intention as alleged in impugned show cause notice dated 30.07.2020 and 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 petitioner in his business but it has affected the petitioner both, economically and socially and due to the publication of a notice dated 10.06.2021, in the newspapers, the Respondent Bank has tarnished the image and reputation of the petitioner so badly, which cannot be compensated in terms of money or in terms of any other compensation.

8.7) It is the case of the petitioner that the company is 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 b