16.07.2026 Sl. No. 89 Ct No. 25 SG WPA 1021 of 2024 Om Prakash Agarwala & Anr. Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhidipto Tarafdar, Ms. Piyali Pan, Mr. Ayant Shaw. ……for the Petitioners Mr. Anjan Kumar Paul. ……for Union Bank of India Ms. Soni Ojha, Mr. Pranit Biswas, Ms. Sambrita B. Chatterjee. ……for respondent no. 7 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order of the Identification Committee dated 19th July, 2023 and the order passed by the Review Committee dated 16th October, 2023 wherein erstwhile promoters/directors of the petitioner company have been declared willful defaulters. 2. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners draw the attention of this Court to the show-cause notice dated 19th October, 2022 wherein bullet points have been indicated and directed the petitioners to show-cause as to why the petitioners shall not be classified as willful defaulters. The petitioners submit that on receipt of the show-cause, the petitioners have submitted their reply categorically 2 intimating that no contemporaneous documents, papers or any statement of accounts have been annexed to the notice that can demonstrate or justify the show-cause notice. It is also mentioned in reply that in the absence of the required details the show-cause notice cannot be treated as legal. 3. He submits that after receipt of reply, instead of supplying the documents as mentioned by the petitioners in the show-cause reply, the Identification Committee passed the impugned order dated 19th July, 2023. He submits that whatever the bullet points appearing in the show-cause notice have been repeated in the Identification Committee order and no further findings have been recorded in the said Identification Committee order. 4. Mr. Chowdhury further submits that on receipt of the order passed by the Identification Committee, the petitioners have again submitted a detailed representation and the petitioners have specifically mentioned that the Identification Committee has issued the order by reproducing the bullet points in the show- cause notice and without any independent finding of the Identification Committee. On receipt of the representation of the petitioners, the Review Committee had passed the impugned order dated 16th October, 2023. 5. Mr. Chowdhury further brought to the notice of this Court to the order of the Review Committee and 3 submits that the same bullet points have been repeated in the Review Committee order and Review Committee has not given any independent finding while passing the impugned order dated 16th October, 2023. Mr. Chowdhury relies upon judgment in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if there is no reason assigned by the Identification Committee and if a reason is assigned by the Review Committee, unless and until the original order does not contain the reason, the Review Committee order cannot be sustained. 6. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners. Petitioners have submitted their reply and on receipt of the reply, the authorities have issued the notice for personal hearing. The petitioners have admitted in the writ petition that they have received the notice of personal hearing but the petitioners failed to appear in the hearing. He submits that the petitioners cannot take the plea that respondent bank has not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He further submits that as regards to the document is concerned, the petitioners have not specified what documents the petitioners required. He relied upon the email dated 24th May, 2023 wherein the bank has informed the petitioners that the forensic report has 4 already been supplied to the petitioners, if any specific document is required by the petitioners let the bank know what the specific document be supplied but the petitioners have not asked for any specific document and thus, finding no other alternative the authorities had passed the impugned orders. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent bank relied upon the judgment in the case of Nillesh Parrekh @ Nilesh Parekh vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors. passed in WPO 2768 of 2022 dated 13th April, 2023 wherein the co- ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the impugned show-cause notice as well as the order of the Identification Committee and the Review Committee does not require any interference and the writ petition was dismissed. By referring the said judgment, learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that the bank has considered all the aspects of the matter and passed the impugned orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. On receipt of the show-cause notice the petitioners have submitted reply. In the reply the petitioners have mentioned as follows:- “…No contemporaneous documents and/or papers and/or any statement of accounts have been annexed to the said notice that can demonstrate or justify the show cause notice. The absence of 5 required details and relied upon documents in the said show cause notice renders the said notice illegal, misconceived, mala fide and bad in law and deserves to be withdrawn, forthwith. It is apparent from the face of the notice that there has been gross violation of natural justice and equity.” 9. Though the petitioners in the reply to the show- cause notice have mentioned about the supply of documents but without supplying the document, the Identification Committee passed the order on 19th July, 2023. The petitioners have submitted the reply to the show-cause notice but the Identification Committee has not considered with regard to the reply submitted by the petitioners. This Court also finds that only the bullet points which were raised in the show-cause notice have been reiterated in the impugned order by the Identification Committee. The Identification Committee has not recorded their own findings except the bullet points which are mentioned in the show-cause notice. 10. On receipt of the order, the petitioners have submitted a detailed representation to the Review Committee. In the representation dated 3rd August, 2023 the petitioners in paragraph 8 has categorically mentioned that the order passed by the Identification Committee is the reproduction of the show-cause notice and is absolutely illegal and in violation of natural justice and the petitioners have also relied upon the judgment of the Oryx Fisheries Private Limited (supra). The Identification Committee on receipt of representation of the petitioners dated 3rd August, 2023 had passed the 6 order on 16th October, 2023. The Review Committee has not considered the representation submitted by the petitioners. The Review Committee has also not given their own findings in the impugned order dated 16th October, 2023. The petitioners have raised the specific grievance before the Review Committee that the Identification Committee has reiterated the points of the show-cause notice but the Review Committee has not considered the same. 11. This Court has perused the order of the Review Committee. The Review Committee has also not given any finding and also reiterated the bullet points of the show- cause notice and the Identification Committee. 12. Considering the above circumstances, this Court finds that neither the Identification Committee nor the Review Committee have applied their independent mind for passing the impugned orders. The show-cause notice, order of Identification Committee and order of Review Committee are reproduction of similar point and there is no independent finding of either Identification Committee or Review Committee. 13. As regards the supply of the document though the petitioners in the show-cause notice have submitted with regard to the supply of the document but subsequently the bank by the email dated 24th May, 2023 informed the petitioners that the forensic report has already been supplied, if the petitioners require any further document, 7 specification may be given so that they can supply to the petitioners. The petitioners in their reply again ask for the document but neither the documents were supplied nor in any of the impugned orders the authorities have dealt with the show-cause reply or representation submitted to the Review Committee. 14. Considering the above, the order dated 19th July, 2023 and 16th October, 2023 are set aside and quashed. 15. Liberty is given to the petitioners that if they intend any specific document, they shall request the bank for supply of the specific document within a week from date and the bank shall supply document within a week thereafter and if any specific document is supplied by the bank to the petitioners, the petitioners are at liberty to submit supplementary reply to the show-cause notice within a week thereafter. On receipt of the supplementary reply, if any, the bank shall pass appropriate orders, if necessary an opportunity of hearing be given. 16. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition WPA 1021 of 2024 is disposed of. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Krishna Rao, J.)