The High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEII\NGANA AT HYDERABAI) :IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No. L1567 OF 2025 oI.L2.20/25 Between: Vidyasq3ar Parchuri & another Petitioners And IDBI Bank, A scheduled bank under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, Rep. by its Deputy General I\{anager & two others. ..Respondents ORDER: Petitioners case is that Respondent No. I - IDBI Bank act:ed illegally, arbitrarily and in.violation of the RBI Master tlirculars dated 01.O7.2013 and O1.O7.2O15 by classiffing them as well as Respondent No. 2 company as Willful Dt:faulters'. It is contended that the impugned action is contrary to the principles of natural justice as laid down by the a Supreme (lourt in State B1nk of India u. Jah Deuelopers hrt. Ltd,. (Civil Appeal No. 47761 of 2019). Petitioners state that the orders dated O8.O7.2021 (communicated on l2.O7.2O2Ll of the sD =t -{ ) Identification Committee and the confirming order dated

27.08.2021 (communicated on 26.10.202ll of the Review Committee are fundamentally-illegal as they fail to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards, and therefore require interference.

1. 1. Petitioners state that they were formerly the management of Respondent No. 2 company which is undergoing CIRP pursuant to orders of the NCLT, Hyderabad Bench in CP(IB) No. 645/HDBl2Ol8. The.NCLT admitted the company into CIRP on 05.06.2023. Due to deficiencies in pubtic announcement and other procedural shortcomings, the NCLT restarted the CIRP process by order dated 21.02.2025. It is stated, Petitioners are part of the suspended ma.nagement and that wrongful classification as willful defaulters affects their rights in the CIRP, including their eligibility to submit a Resolution Plan for the MSME under the.statutory scheme.

1.2. Petitioners state that Respondent No. 2 company was engaged in the businesS of manufacturing hybrid seeds and is uniquely dependent on climatic conditions. In 2Ol2-L3, I severe drought occurred which seriously affected agricultural output across several states. As a result, the company's seed J production collapsed, resulting in heavy financial losses and severe liquidity crisis. It is maintained that default in repa5rment stemmeri directly from this natural calamity, which was entirely beyond t.heir control. At the critical time when the company was attempting to restructure and revive operations, the consortium banks, including Respondent No. 1, failed to release sanctioned working capital. They allege that the banks did not release the approved Pre-CDR PD amounts in 2012, caused delay in approval of the CDR package, delayed execution of Master Restmcturing Agreement, and made only partial disbursement of funds r:ven after approval. They contend that some banks did not paftir:ipate in the PDR, and that banks refused to release Rs. 15 crores required for packing and placing seeds in the market in 2O13 ar,'d 2014. This led to inability to place stock on time, higtL sales returns, significant inventory costs, cash flow deterioration, loss of manpower and eventual operational slowdown. Petitioners state that these circumstances 1.3. demonstrate that default was not willful' They assert that there was never any diversion of funds with dishonest intent or deliberate decision not to repay' For several years prior to 4 t; drought, the Company had diligenfly serviced interest and repayments. It is pointed out that they made rnultiple presentations to Joint Lenders' Meetings, wrote letters to bank chairpersons and officials, approached state and central government ministries, and submitted financial information to lenders, showing their continuous efforts to revive the business. It is also contended, the mandatory safeguards prescribed under the RBI Master Circular were not followed. Show Cause Notice dated 29.06.2020 was issued by a Deputy General Manager, who. was not a member of the Identilication Committee, therefore, was not competent to issue the notice.,. The Petitioners emphasize that RBI Circular requires that show cause notice must be issued by the Identification Cotnmittee itself after considering evidence, and that a non-committee oflicer issuing the notice demonstrates. lack of application of rnind. Reliance is placed on the decision in SutyolJgothi Infotech Ltd- a. Unlon of India (WP No. 5030 of 20231, a wherein it was held that non-committee issuance of a notice is invalid.

1.4. Petitioners state that there was withholding of material documents, which prevented them from grving an \ \ 5 effective reply. Respondent Bank failed to furnish the forensic audit report, even though it was the principal basis of t-I:e allegatio::s in the show cause notice. Between 14'O8'2020 and l6.Og.2C'21, Petitioners repeatedly requested the audit report' Only aftr:r directions of this Court in Writ Petition No' 6544 of 2021, by order dated 16.04.2021, did Respondent No' I provide the forerLsic audit report on ll-O5.2O21. Petitioners state that due to ()ovid restrictions, their auditors could not visit their godown and other locations to complete reconciliation, leading them to s.eek reasonable time. Petitioners highlight the chronological sequence

1.5. demonstrating non-compliance. They refer to the show cause notice dated 29.06.2020, their reply on l3'O7'2O20, repeated requests for the audit report, eventual disclosure on 11.05.2Oi)1, their request for time on 25.05'2021, the first committer: order dated O8.O7.2021 (communicated on

12.07 .2Oi',L1, their reply dated 27 -O7 .2O2 1, the confirming order 5 of. 27.O8.11O21 (communicated on 26'1O'2O2ll, and publication of their photographs as willful defaulters on 3l 'Ol '2022' They submit that this sequence shows serious procedural lapses' 6 Petitioners also contend that order of the Identification committee dated og.or.2o2l is a non-speaking order which does not deal with any of the detailed replies given by them. They argue that the committee merely reproduced vague allegations and did not examine the evidence or explanations provided, especially with regard to group company transactions, routing of bank accounts and the drought-related impact. They also contend that the order of the Review committee dated 27.08.2021 suffers from the same defects and is not signed by the committee members but only by a chief General Manager. tt is stated, the seven-step procedure mandated by the RBI circular, including issuance of notice by the committee itself, providing all relied on documents, affording personal hearing, passing a reasoned order, affording a reasonable opportunity to represent against the first order, and consideration by a properly constituted Review committee, were not followed. They submit that this renders the proceedings void.

1.6. Petitioners contend that Respondent No. t has wrongly alleged diversion of funds to group companies. They state that all group entities were genuine seed and \ \ n n a 7 biotechnologr companies engaged in various aspects of agriculr-ural research, seed production, biotechnolory, and marketing. It is stated, group companies had substantial operations, dealer networks, and a long-standing role in the industry. They refer to inter-company agreements, shared infrastr-rcture and historic contributions of group companies, includirrg turnover and their role in the Vibha Consortium. They assert that these transactions were commercially justified and known to lenders.

1.7. Petitioners further explain that routing of funds through Bank of Ba.roda and RBL Bank occurred only because the lncome Tax Department had attached the company's TRA and consortium accounts in 2Ol3 under orders dated

27.03.2013. They state that such attachment compelled the company to temporarily operate through those banks. They also assert that the company had disclosed the relevant bank statements to SBI and other consortium lenders through email dated 22,Og.2O14, and that in a JLM held on 26.09.2014 the F, lenders acknowledged that Petitioners submitted the relevant statement.s. They maintain that routing of funds was neither hidden nor violative of consortium terms. Petitioners state that 8 n their explanations regarding receivables from group companies, reconciliation difficulties due to stock being withheld by C&F agents, and time-barred claims under the Limitation Act were not considered by the bank in either of the orders.

1.8. Petitioners assert that declaration of willful default has serious consequences including reputational harm, inability to access credit, bar on participating in the banking system and disqualification from submitting a Resolution Plan for an MSME under the IBC. They state that this wrongful declaration continues to operate as a "continuing tort" under Section 22 of the Limitation Act, as the consequences are ongoing. Only three consortium banks, namely SBI, IDBI (Respondent No. 1) and PNB, declared them as willful defaulters, while the other consortium members did not, indicating lack of uniformity and arbitrariness. Petitioners clarify that Writ Petition No. 27759 of 2024 filed earlier was withdrawn on 30-12.2024 witt- liberty to file a fresh'one, because it had improperly impleaded all consortium banks in a single petition even though the I proceedings of the banks were separate. They state that the present pdtition has been filed to correct that procedural error. They ultimately submit that the entire proceedings of 9 Responclent No. 1 are illegal, arbitrary, violative of natural justice, 'yiolative of the RBI Circulars, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. They pray for quashing of the orders dated 08..OT .2021 and 27.O8.2O21 and for consequential relief.

2. On the other hand, Respondent No. 1 submits that Writ Petition is fundamentally not maintainable as IDBI Bank Limited does not fall within the definition of "State" under Article 112 of the Constitution of India. It is emphasized that, though IDBI Bank was originally constituted under the lndustriai Development Bank of India Act, 1964 as a statutory corporation, the legal status of the institution changed entirely after the enactment of the Industrial Development Bank (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2003. By virtue of Section 3 of the 2003 Act, the undertaking of the Development Bank was transferred to and vested in a company incorporated under the Companies Act, viz. IDBI Bank Limited. Hence, the Bank operates as a company without deep or pervasive governmental control.

2.1. In support of the above contention, Respondent No. 1 places reliance on Mrinmagee Rohit Umrotkar a. Unlon of 10 Indiar, where the Bombay High Court examined the nahrre of control exercised by the Government over IDBI Bank. Paragraph 19 of the said judgment is as under: "......that transition of Development Bank from body Corporate to Company (IDBI Bank Limited) without deep and pervasive administrative, financial and functional control of Government of India over such Company shows that the IDBI Bank Limited is not an undertaking of Government of India."

2.2. It is also stated, this judgment squarely applies and demonstrates that IDBI Bank cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction, particularly for disputes arising out of loan transactions. Respondent No. 1 further relies on the judgment in All Indla IDBI Oflicers Associctiott tt. Union of Indlaz. The relevant observations are as under: " that the government does not exercise any administrative and functional control of IDBI Limited and thereby Development Bank does not fall within the meaning of "State' under Article 12 of Constitution of India." It is argued that this authoritative pronouncement reinforces that Bank cannot be treated as an instrumentality of the State, therefore, proceedings under Article 226 are misconceived. ' 2O2o SCC online Bom 3664 ' 2022 SCC online Bor.rl 2693 o I l1

2.3. This Respondent next relies on the Supreme Court's decisiorr in Federal Bank Ltd. u. Sagdr Thoma-ss, which clarifies,that private banks or companies engaged in commercial activities, even though regulated by RBI, are not discharging public frnctions so as to attract writ jurisdiction. The following extract liom paragraph 733 is relied upon: " Merely because Reserve Bank of India lays the banking policy system or in the interest of the banking system or in the interest of monetary stability or sound economic growth having due regard to the interests of the depositors etc., as piovided under Section 5 (ca) o[ the Banking: Regulation Act, 1949 Act No. 1O of 1949 does not mean that private ,lompanies carrying on the business or commercial activity of banking, discharge any public function or public dutSr: merely regulatory provisiorrs to ensure that commercial activity carried on by private bodies vrork within a discipline, neither confer any status upon the compan, nor put any obligation upon it which may be enforced through issuance of a Writ Under Article 226". It is stated, this principle applies fully to the present c:rse, especially since the Bank's decision to classify an account as a willful defaulter is purely contractual and commercirrl in nature. I Respondent No. 1 also cites the Supreme Court's

2.4. decision .in Phoern;ix ARC (P) Ltd. a. Vishua Bharo:ti Vtdga '(zoos) 10 scc 733 f !i t2 Mqndlra, where it was held that writ petitions are not maintainable against private financial institutions for actions under the SARFAESI Act. Paragraph 18 reads as under: o ...... Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition against the private financial institution ARC (Assets Reconstruction Company) the Appellant herein under Article 226 af t}:.e Constitution of India against the proposed action/ actions under Section 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable... ......tf proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and for any proposed action is to be taken.and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARc, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/ or is maintainable and/ or entertainable.... " It is stated, the legal principle laid down is of wider application and that Courts must be slow to entertain writ petitions arising out of banking disputes, particularly those concerrring credit discipline.

2.5. Respondent No. 1 denies all the allegations except those specifibally admitted. It states that Petitioners, in their capacity as promoters and directors of Respondent No. 2 i company, availed substantial credit facilities from IDBI Bank as a member of the consortium. The credit facilities were availed o lzozzy s scc 34s 13 pursualrt to loan agreements, h5pothecation deeds and / mortgagps over immovable properties. The Bank emphasizes that Petitioners, as directors and guarantors, are responsible for repaym€)nt of dues and that their internal disputes have no bearing on the classification. It is also stated, Respondent No. 2 committed multiple breaches of loan terms, defaulted in repayment, and became irregular, culminating in classification as Non-l)erforming Asset (NPA) on 3O.O4.2013. Thereafter, the consortiurn lenders, with State Bank of India as lead. bank, filed recovery proceedings in DRT Hyderabad on 11.04.2016 in oA No. 417 12016, later renumbered TA No. 2556 l2Ol7 for recovery of Rs. 798.48 crores. Other banks also initiated stAndalone suits wh:.ch were decreed. These facts demonstrate the chronic and serious nature of defaults.

2.6. Respondent No. 1 asserts that Petitioners lacked bonafideintention to repay dues and instead adopted a strategr of filing repeated legal proceed.ings to delay recovery. After classilical-ion as NPA, the Bank initiated willful defaulter t proceedings in 2O2O strictly in compliance with the RBI Master Circular rlated 01.07.2015. The definition of lvillful default' 14 under clause 2.1.3 of the RBI circular and reproduces the extract: " A "wilful default' would be deemed to have occurred if any of the following events is noted: a) The Unit has defaulted in meeting its payment/repayment obligations to the lender even when it has the capacity to honour the said obligations. b) The unit has defaulted in meeting its payment/repa5rmerrl oglig?tions to the lender and has not utilized the finance from the lender for the specific purposes for which finance was availed of but has diverted the funds for other purposes. c) The Unit has defaulted in meeting its. payment/repayment obligations to the lender and has siphoned off the funds so that the funds have not been utilised for the specific purpose for which finance was availed of, nor are the funds available with the unit in the form of other assets. d) The unit has defaulted in meeting its payment/repayment obligation to the lender and has also disposed of or removed the movable lixed assets or immovable'property, given for the purpose of securing a term loan without the r knowledge of the bank/lender. The irtentification of the wilfr-ll default should be made keeping in view of the track record of the borrowers and should not be decided on the basis of isolated transactions/incidents. The default to be categorised as willful must be intentional, deliberate and calculated.', 2-7. It is argued that conduct of Petitioners fell squarely within these categories, including failure to route funds through consortium accounts, diversion of funds to related entities, and failure to repay despite having capacity. Respondent No. 1 denies the allegation of denial of documents or hearings. It reiterates that Petitioners were given four opportunities for r-) + J l5 personirl hearing through notices dated 14.O8.2O2O,

31.12.2020, 16.03.2021 and 12.O5.2O2L, fixing hearings on

26.08.2020, I2.Ol.2O2l, 24.O3.2O21 and 29.O5.2O21 respectively. At each instance, Petitioners refused to attend, citing r€asons that the Bank considers unjustified or dilatory. It is furthe:r stated, pursuant to the order in Writ Petition No. 6544 of 2021 dated L6.O4.2O21, the forensic audit report was shared with Petitioners on 11.O5.2O21 and it demonstrates transparency and compliance with directions.

2.8. The Willful Defaulter Identification Committee (WDC) passed its order on O8.O7.2O2L after considering the material available; the order was communicated on 12.07.2O2t and Petitioners submitted their representation dated

27.O7.2Oi21 to the Review Committee. The Review Committee considered the representation and confirmed the WDC's classification in its meeting on 27.08.2021. This decision was conveyed through letter dated 26.LO.2O21. After the classification attained. finality, public notices dated O2.O2.2O22 were issued in Financial Express and Nava Telangana, in accordance with the RBI Circular. Respondent No. 1 denies the allegation of violation of natural justice, stating that Petitioners ,---_-_--_--. I , t6 had every opportunity to defend themselves and submit documents, but deliberately avoided participation. They rely on the judgment in Writ Appeal Nos. 680, 681 and 7Ol'of 2022 dated 07.O2.2O24, reLevant extract is as under: '

13. Thus, from perusal of para 3 of the aforesaid Master Circular, it is evident that it does not contain any requirement that the order passed by the frrst level committee should disclose the constitution of the first level committee. It is also pertinent to note that the order of the first level committee attains finality only after it is confirmed by the review Committee. This Respondent submits that this extract conclusively shows that issuance of a notice by a DGM does not violate the Circular as long as the Committee itself takes the decision.

2.g. Respondent No. 1 cites the Calcutta High Court's judgment in Goort Pra^sdd fuenkq. u. SBF, paragraph 26 of which reads as under: " The Petitioner, in the said notices, was given opportunif to make submissions in writing within 15 days...... and it was clearly mentioned that the IC would pass necessar5r orders thereupon. The entire proceeding and proposed actions referred to in both notices were taken by the IC, which had ample jurisdiction to do so under the RBI Master Circular. As such, the Deputy General Manager merely communicated the show cause notices to the petitioner and did not t w.P.No. t7t of 2o2l \ r) t t7 intrudr: the jurisdiction of the IC in any manner whatsoever. Thus, placingi reliance on the dual Division Judgments in Union Bank of India, it can safely be held that the issuance of notice by the Deputy General Manag,:r ipso facto did not invalidate the notice". It is argued that this reinforces that communication of notice by the DGI\{ does not invalidate proceedings.

2.to. Respondent No. 1 also relies on paragraph 24 of the Sup.r'eme Court's judgment in SBf u. Jah Ileuelopers hft. Ltd..6 anrd states that all procedural steps indicated by the Hon'lole liupreme Court were followed: " Para 3 of the Master Circular dated L-7-213 permitted the borrower to make representation within 15 days of the preliminary decision of the First Committee, after following Para 3 (b) of the Revised Circular dated l-7-:2O15, must give its order to the borrower as soon as it is made. The borrower can then represent against such order within a period of 15 days to the Review Committee. Such written representation can be ;r full representation of facts and law (if any). The Review Committr:e must then pass a reasoned order on such representation which mttst be served on the borrower."

2.t1. . Respondent No. 1 further states that forensic audit revealed that in FY 2015, despite sales of Rs. 76.79 crores, only Rs. 1.O8 crores were routed through SBI and none through IDBI Bank, while accounts with RBL and BOB were used. It also 6 lzotey 6 scc 787 \ \ l8 T) states that related party receivables were unexplained and not recovered. Thus, the Bank asserts that diversion and misuse of funds were clear. Respondent No. 1 submits that the present writ petition is filed after more than three years and therefore, suffers from delay and laches. They accuse Petitioners of not cooperating in CIRP proceedings and of obstructing lender efforts to initiate CIRP before NCLT. All actions were fully compliant with the RBI Master Circular and judicial guidelines, hence, prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition with costs.

3. Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Kanumuri Kalyani, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri V.V.S.N. Raju, learned counsel for Respondent No.l, Sri G.P. Yash Vardhan, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and M/s N Legal, learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No.3.

4. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the material placed on record, including the impugned I orders dated O8.O7.2O2I and27.O8.2O21, RBI Master Circulars dated O1.O7.2013 and O1.O7.2015, and judgments relied upon by both the parties, the following issues arise for consideration: (i) maintainability of Writ Petition against Respondent No. 1, (ii) J t9 whether the proceedings culminating in declaration of Petitioners as willful defaulters suffered from any violation of the RBI Ci::culars or the principles of natural justice, and (iii) whether the impugned orders warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

5. As regards the objection on maintainability, Responiient No. 1 urged that IDBI Bank Limited does not fall within the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, consequently, Writ Petition, which arises out of a banking transaction is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed by Respondents on the decisions of the Bombay High Court in lWrinmagee Rohtt Umtotleor's corse (sapral arrd All Indla IDBI OfflicersAssociortion and on the principle laid down by the l{on'lcle Supreme Court in Sago;r Thomas's c@s;e (supra), vrherein it has been held that writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily !. discharging purely commercial functions. Petitioners, on the invoked against private banking institutions other hand, contend that proceedings impugned stem from a statutory obligations traceable to the RBI Master Circular on Witful Dr:faulters, therefore, the matter falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226. In 20 support of this submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Honble Supreme court in llt/s sordar Associqtes and. others o. hrnjab & slad B,.nkz, wherein it has been held that, notwithstanding the non-governmental character of a bank, its actions would be amenable to judicial review when they are required to conform to binding directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In view of the sarne, this court is of the opinion that challenge in the writ petition is directed not at the commercial wisdom of the Bank, but at the alleged violation of mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the RBI Master circular. In the light of the legal position laid down in sardar Associates, and bearing in mind t].at impugned classification as willful deiaulters arises from a regulatory framework having statutory force, this court holds t]lat this writ Petition is maintainable. Nevertheless, since elaborate submissions have been advanced on the merits of the controversy, this court proceeds to examine those issues as well. , ) 6' on the merits of the chalrenge to the wilful defaulter proceedings, petitioners urged that show cause notice '2oog (8) scc 2sz _:.--- \ 2l was invalid as it was issued by a Deputy General Manager rather t.han the Identification Committee itself, that material documents including forensic audit report were net timely furnisherl; Petitioners were denied effective opportunities of hearing; and that orders of both the ldentification Committee and the lReview Committee were non-speaking and mechanical. Petitioners relied upon Suryajgothi Infotech Ltd's cq.se (supra) to contend that non-committee issuance of show cause notice invalidates the proceedings. They have also emphasized that the alleged defaults were not intentional but arose out of extraordirrary factors including drought and non-release of funds by <:onsortium lenders.

7. However, Respondent No. t has demonstrated, with reference ':o the record, that Petitioners were issued notices of hearing on multiple occasions but declined to appear; that forensic zrudit report was furnished promptly following directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6544 of 2021; ttre Identification Committee considered the material available and passed its order, and that the Review Committee afforded Petitioners an opportunity to submit representation which was duly considered. The legal position clarified in Writ Appeals No. 22 680, 681 and Tor of 2022 as werl as in the calcutta High court's decision in @utrt pro.sad, Gioenka,s case (supra), makes it clear that communication of a notice by an officer such as a Deputy General Manager does not vitiate proceedings so long as the ldentification committee itself undertakes the decision-making process. This court finds merit in the Respondent's contention that petitioners' grievance in this regard is misconceived. 8- The relevant extracts of the RBI Master clrcular dated oL.o7.2ors, as considered in sBr a. Jo.h Deuebpers, mandate issuance of a preliminary order by the first committee, followed by an opportunity to the borrower to make a representation, and thereafter a reasoned decision by the Review committee. Respondent Bank has placed material to show that each of these steps was adhered to. petitioners, principal challenge is that they were unable to meaningfully respond due to delayed access to documents. However, the record does not establish that petitioners, after receiving the forensic audit report on Ll-os.2o2r, were prevented from submitting a detailed response; nor is there any evidence that r\ I LJ they availed the opportunities for personal hearing fixed on four separate dates.

9. On the allegation that the impugned orders are non-spezdcing, tJre Court notes that while the orders may not be elaboratt:, they do record the basis of the conclusion that Petitione::s had diverted funds, failed to route transactions through ,:onsortium accounts, and failed to recover receivables from related entities. The forensic audit lindings relied upon by the Committee indicate that substantial transactions were routed outside the consortium accounts and that related-party receivables remained uncollected. The scope of judicial review in cases involving commercial and financial assessments by expert committee's is limited and does not extend to re-appreciating factual cc'nclusions unless they are shown to be perverse, arbitrary crr lrosupported by any material. No such perversity or illegality hia.s been demonstrated.

10. Petitioners contended that default was caused due to droughl: conditions and non-release of funds by lenders. a These are issues which were within the knowledge of Petitioners for several years and have been the subject of earlier litigations and lender discussions. While the circumstances surrounding ! n 24 financial distress may be relevant in determining capaci$r or intent, the willful defau.lter framework under the RBI Circular focuses on conduct, including diversion of funds and non- routing of transactions. Petitioners are unable to substa.ntiate that the committees failed to consider relevant materials or considered extraneous materials. The court finds no procedural violation sufficiently grave to vitiate the proceedings. 1 1. As regards delay and laches, the impugned orders are dated O8.O7.2O21 and 27.08.2021, while the present writ petition has been filed more than three years thereafter. : Petitioners' plea that declaration constitutes a continuing wrong is not persuasive in the context of the decisions of the supreme court holding.that willful defaulter declarations are amenable to challenge only within a reasonable period. Petitioners' earlier writ Petition having been withdrawn on technical grounds does not furnish a fresh cause of action.

12. Upon thorough consideration of the factual background and the legal submissions advanced, this court is t unable to discern any material to suggest that proceedings undertaken by Respondent No. 1 were in derogation of the RBI Master circulars or in breach of the requirements of natural f 25 justice. Petitioners have not demonstrated existence of any jurisdictional infirmity,, substantial procedural lapse, or perversity in the decision-making process that would justify the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

13. For the reasons stated supra, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Accordingfy, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. L4. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. / SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR \ To, ,/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. one cc to smt.s I(ANUMURI KALYANI, Advocate. [oPUC] 2. One CC to SRI AJGAL RAVI BABU, Advocate' [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRt G.P.YASH VARDHAN, Advocate' IOPUC] 4. One CC to ttrUs.N.LEGAL HYDERABAD, Advocate. [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies. BSK BS t F: HIGH COURT D =i t01/,1212025 \ () (J STA 2 3 JAt{ ?$26 -t Cr ORDER WP.No.11567 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION s c D * ,& \