Wilful defaulter notice jurisdiction upheld where committee made the prima facie determination and directed issuance of notice.

A challenge to a wilful defaulter show-cause notice was held maintainable only where lack of authority or jurisdiction is pleaded, but the notice was sustained because the identification committee had already made a prima facie determination and directed issuance of notice under the applicable circular. The regional office officer's role was treated as an ancillary administrative step, not an unlawful delegation of the committee's core function. The court also noted that no prejudice was pleaded and that the existence of default, together with the prima facie view of wilful default, furnished the jurisdictional basis for the notice. The writ interference was therefore unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice initiating proceedings to classify the borrowers/directors as wilful defaulters was without jurisdiction because it was not issued by the identification committee.

Analysis: The challenge to a show-cause notice is maintainable where lack of authority or jurisdiction is pleaded, but the notice here was issued pursuant to a prior decision of the identification committee. The committee had prima facie identified the default and directed issuance of notice, while retaining the ultimate responsibility to decide the matter in accordance with the applicable circular. The issuance of notice by a regional office officer was treated as an ancillary administrative step and not an impermissible delegation of the committee's core function. The Court also found no pleaded prejudice and held that the existence of default and the prima facie view of wilful default constituted the jurisdictional basis for the notice.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was not vitiated for want of jurisdiction and the writ court ought not to have interfered; the appeal was allowed and the writ petitioner's challenge failed.

---