Reasoned wilful defaulter orders are mandatory; bare conclusory findings and inadequate application of mind invalidate the declaration.

Orders declaring borrowers as wilful defaulters were held unsustainable because the Identification Committee and Review Committee failed to record reasons or show application of mind to the borrowers' replies. The governing circular required a reasoned finding that default was intentional, deliberate, and calculated, and a bare conclusory rejection of the defence did not satisfy fairness or natural justice. The challenge to the show-cause notice failed because it was issued on behalf of the Committee, and no timely objection was raised. The declarations were quashed, with liberty to restart proceedings from the show-cause stage in accordance with the circular.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the orders declaring the petitioners as wilful defaulters were sustainable when they did not record reasons or reflect application of mind. (ii) Whether the show-cause notice issued in the name of the Deputy General Manager vitiated the initiation of proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the orders declaring the petitioners as wilful defaulters were sustainable when they did not record reasons or reflect application of mind.

Analysis: The governing Master Circular required the Identification Committee to consider the borrower's response and then record the fact of wilful default and the reasons for that conclusion. The impugned orders merely reproduced brief tabular references and used conclusory expressions such as the reply being not acceptable, without dealing with the substance of the petitioners' defence or setting out the basis for the finding that default was intentional, deliberate, and calculated. The Review Committee also adopted the same approach and did not cure the defect. In matters having serious civil consequences, reasons are an essential facet of fairness and natural justice.

Conclusion: The orders declaring the petitioners as wilful defaulters were unsustainable and were rightly set aside for want of reasons.

Issue (ii): Whether the show-cause notice issued in the name of the Deputy General Manager vitiated the initiation of proceedings.

Analysis: The notice showed that the Deputy General Manager acted pursuant to the order and directions of the Wilful Defaulter Identification Committee. The petitioners also did not raise this objection before the committees. On the material placed, the notice was treated as issued on behalf of the Committee and not as an unauthorized initiation.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show-cause notice failed.

Final Conclusion: The declarations of wilful default against the petitioners were quashed, while liberty was left with the respondents to recommence action from the stage of the show-cause notice in accordance with the governing circular.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the regulatory scheme requires the authority to consider the reply and record the fact and reasons for declaring a person a wilful defaulter, a bare conclusory order without reasons is invalid for breach of natural justice and lack of application of mind.

---