The main legal point established in the judgment is that decisions of administrative bodies must be reasoned and must provide a fair opportunity for the affected parties to be heard, in accordance with principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the captioned writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. Issue rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. Abhineeta B. Chaturvedi, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

3. The grievance raised in the captioned writ petition is against the communications dated 24.09.2021 and 05.01.2022, communicating the decision of the Wilful Defaulters Identification Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Identification Committee’) and the Review Committee respectively whereby, the names of the petitioners have been included in the list of wilful defaulters.

4. The facts, as can be culled out from the record, are that somewhere in the year 2017 the respondent has classified the account of the petitioner no.1 as a non performing asset. Pursuant thereto, various coercive measures were taken against the petitioners coupled with the multiple legal proceedings. Apropos which, a show cause notice dated 17.02.2020 was issued by the respondent, requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why the petitioners, should not be declared as wilful defaulters within the meaning of the Master Circular no. DBR.No.CID.BC.57/ 20.16.003/ 2014-15 dated July 1, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Master Circular, 2015’). Immediately thereafter, vide e-mail dated 28.02.2020, the petitioner no.1 requested the respondent to provide legible copies of the annexures attached to the show cause notice and grant some time to respond to the show cause notice. According to the petitioners, the reason for seeking sufficient time, was the ailment of their mother, who was unwell and had to be hospitalized time and again for constant medical attention on account of she being at advanced stage of Alzheimer.

4.1 According to the petitioner, the request was not acceded to and the petitioners, were compelled to respond within the stipulated time. Scanned copies of the documents, as prayed for, were provided; however, according to the petitioners, the same were not legible. Further request was made for extending the time for responding the show cause notice, followed by e-mail. Since no response was available from the respondent, that the petitioners were compelled to submit their reply dated 07.03.2020 with the limited material available. Another e-mail dated 09.03.2020 was addressed to the respondent, inter alia, opposing and resisting the threat posed by the respondent in the show cause notice regarding publication of the photographs of the petitioners.

4.2 In the interregnum, communications were exchanged and close to ten months, acceding to the request, the respondent has addressed a communication dated 14.01.2021, offering the petitioner personal hearing before the Identification Committee on 09.02.2021. Vide said letter, the respondent has informed about the personal hearing to be through video conferencing and failing to attend the same, would be assumed as the petitioners having nothing to submit. Another notice of personal hearing was sent by the respondent to the petitioner on 01.02.2021, which was responded to by the petitioner vide e-mail dated 04.02.2021, acknowledging the opportunity granted for personal hearing and request that hearing date, be adjourned to any date between 03rd March to 10th March, 2021 in view of the medical difficulties faced by the family of the petitioners. Not acceding to the request and to the surprise of the petitioners, by addressing a letter dated 06.02.2021, the respondent called upon the petitioners to attend the hearing on 09.02.2021. Request was once again made by the petitioners for an adjournment, but the said e-mail was not replied. In absence of any response from the respondent, the petitioners remained under a bona fide belief that their request for an adjournment would be accepted.

4.3 After almost a gap of