Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioners have assailed a show-cause notice dated July 24, 2018 issued by the Deputy General Manager (Recovery) of Allahabad Bank under the Master Circular of the Reserve Bank of India relating to the declaration of Wilful Defaulters. The petitioners have also sought a direction upon the Bank to allow the petitioners to be represented before the Wilful Defaulter Identification Committee by an advocate.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the impugned show-cause notice is without jurisdiction. He has referred to the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters dated July 1, 2015 and submitted, referring to Clause 3 of such Master Circular that, the Identification Committee is required to issue the show-cause notice by itself. It cannot delegate such function to any other person. The impugned show-cause notice has been issued by a person who is not a member of the Identification Committee. Therefore, the impugned show-cause notice is bad in law. In support of his contentions that, a show-cause notice under Clause 3(b) of the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters is required to be issued by the Identification Committee alone, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment and order dated February 5, 2019 passed in W.P. No. 1399 (W) of 2019 (Pawan Kumar Patodia & Ors. v. Union Bank of India & Ors.) in support of such contentions. He has relied upon Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings, seventh edition and referred to the paragraph with the heading prescribed manner. He has submitted that, the notice of a meeting has to be given in the manner prescribed by the regulation. In the present case, the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters requires the Identification Committee to issue the notice.
(3.) Relying upon All India Reporter (Ravulu Subba Rao & Ors. v. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras, 1956 AIR(SC) 604) learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, when the law does not prohibit a person to be represented by an agent, then, the petitioners are entitled to be represented by an advocate before the Identification Committee. He has relied upon the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters and submitted that, the provisions of such Master Circular does not debar a person required to be heard by the Identification Committee, to be represented by an advocate. The Master Circular does not take away the right of the petitioner to appoint an agent. The petitioner can appoint any person and even an Advocate as his agent. Therefore, the petitioner should be allowed to be represented by an advocate before the Identification Committee, if, the Court is pleased not to find that the impugned show-cause notice is not bad in law.;