SANTANU GHOSH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners question the propriety of a decision rendered by the Grievance Redressal Committee of the respondent bank while rejecting the petitioners' representation against a preliminary opinion of the bank that the petitioners should be labelled as wilful defaulters under a master circular of the Reserve Bank of India issued on July 1, 2011. The reliefs claimed in the petition essentially seek the annulment of the notices issued by the respondent bank on February 7, 2013 and March 4, 2013 informing the petitioners that the names of the petitioners had been included in the list of wilful defaulters and circulated to credit information companies. The notice dated February 7, 2013, in its second paragraph, curtly informed the addressees that the Grievance Redressal Committee of the bank had rejected the appeal carried by the petitioners against the decision of an appropriate committee of the bank to include the names of the petitioners in the list of wilful defaulters maintained by the Reserve Bank of India and by a credit information company. In course of the present proceedings, the petitioners have been furnished a single-page order of the Grievance Redressal Committee passed on December 1, 2012 that does not appear to have been previously communicated to the petitioners. Such decision was rendered on the petitioners' appeal against the bank's proposal to classify the petitioners as wilful defaulters and the discussion and decision are tersely reflected in the following lines:

(2.) THE master circular pertaining to wilful defaulters issued by the Reserve Bank of India, in its relevant clause, mandates as follows:

(3.) THE consequence of a person being classified as a wilful defaulter is grave and the individual or the company would scarcely qualify thereafter to be able to obtain credit facilities from banks and financial institutions. The master circular, in such circumstances, makes a two-fold procedure to be adopted with every opportunity to be afforded to a person sought to be branded as a wilful defaulter to question the basis for the formation of the opinion prior to such person being so condemned. In view of the serious consequences that visit a person being labelled as a wilful defaulter, the adjudication undertaken by the Grievance Redressal Committee and its decision have to reflect the defence of the would-be wilful defaulter against the opinion of the preliminary committee and the evidence relied upon by the preliminary committee. In this case, a detailed written representation was submitted by the petitioners to the Grievance Redressal Committee. It was incumbent on such committee to discuss the defence of the petitioners, weigh the arguments proffered against the opinion rendered by the preliminary committee in the backdrop of the evidence relied upon by the preliminary committee and, only thereafter, render an opinion as to whether the petitioners met the relevant conditions under the Reserve Bank master circular to be classified as wilful defaulters.