Wilful defaulter process requires committee-issued notice and no automatic right to agent or advocate representation.

Under the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters, the Identification Committee's role includes examining evidence, forming the prima facie view, issuing the show-cause notice, considering the borrower's reply, and then taking the final decision. Because notice issuance is part of that core process, it cannot be delegated unless the framework expressly permits it. The circular also does not confer a general right on a borrower to be represented by an agent before the Committee, and that absence of entitlement extends to appointment of an Advocate as of right. The impugned notice and consequential steps were quashed, while the bank was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Identification Committee acting under the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters dated 01.07.2015 could delegate the power to issue the show-cause notice; (ii) whether a borrower served with a show-cause notice under that Circular is entitled to be represented by an agent before the Identification Committee; (iii) if such representation is permissible, whether an Advocate can be appointed.

Issue (i): Whether the Identification Committee acting under the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters dated 01.07.2015 could delegate the power to issue the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The Circular created a structured decision-making mechanism in which the Identification Committee was required to examine the evidence, form a prima facie view, issue the show-cause notice, consider the borrower's response, and then take a final decision. The issuance of notice was treated as an integral part of that decision-making process, not as a detachable ministerial step. Although administrative powers may in appropriate cases permit delegation of ancillary acts, the framework of the Circular required application of mind by the Committee at every material stage. The notice had to emanate from the designated Committee itself to ensure meaningful participation and a proper defence by the borrower.

Conclusion: The power to issue the show-cause notice could not be delegated. This issue was decided against the bank and in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether a borrower served with a show-cause notice under the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters dated 01.07.2015 is entitled to be represented by an agent before the Identification Committee.

Analysis: The proceeding under the Circular was held to be one where the borrower is called upon to respond to the proposed classification as a wilful defaulter, and the right of oral hearing itself is not automatic but depends upon the Committee's decision. In that setting, the Court followed the binding precedent which had declined to recognise an unrestricted right to legal or agent representation before the bank's committee. Since the governing circular did not confer such a right and the nature of the proceeding did not justify it as a matter of entitlement, no such general right could be implied.

Conclusion: The borrower had no right to be represented by an agent before the Identification Committee. This issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): If representation by an agent is permissible, whether an Advocate can be appointed.

Analysis: Since the borrower had no entitlement to agent representation as of right, the further question of appointing an Advocate did not arise in the petitioner's favour. The Court also noted that lawyer's assistance is not automatically available unless the governing framework so provides or the facts compel its grant.

Conclusion: Appointment of an Advocate as agent was not permissible as a matter of right. This issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned show-cause notice and all consequential steps taken pursuant to it were quashed, while leaving the bank free to proceed afresh in accordance with law under the governing circular.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a regulatory framework designates a particular committee to examine evidence, form the preliminary view, issue notice, and decide the matter, the notice-forming step is part of the core adjudicatory process and cannot be delegated unless the instrument expressly permits such delegation.

---