Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishi Aggarwala, Ms. Niyati Kohli and Mr. Vaibahav Tyagi, Advocates v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA .....

1. The present petitioner has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for setting aside/quashing a notice to show cause dated 7.2.2017, issued by the respondent/Bank calling upon him and other addressees to state as to why they should not be treated as wilful defaulters.

2. The records reveals that the petitioner has already filed a reply dated 22.2.2017 to the aforesaid notice to show cause which is admittedly pending consideration at the end of the respondent/Bank.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank, who appears on advance notice, states that the present petition is premature as the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 7.2.2017, has yet to be considered by the competent court.

4. Mr. Nayar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner states on instructions that he does not wish to press the present petition. He 2017:DHC:1278 WP(C) 1975/2017 however requests that if final order passed by the respondent/Bank is adverse to the petitioner, the respondent/bank be directed not to place the same in public domain for a period of two weeks reckoned from the date of receipt of the said order, to enable him to seek appropriate legal recourse.

6. While disposing of the present petition, it is directed that the respondent/bank shall consider the reply of the petitioner in response to the notice to show cause dated 7.2.2017 and pass a final order in accordance with law, under written intimation to him. In the event, the said order is adverse to the petitioner, the same shall not be placed in public domain for a period of two weeks reckoned from the date of receipt thereof by the petitioner, for him to seek legal recourse against the same, as per law.

7. The petition is disposed of, along with the pending applications. HIMA KOHLI, J MARCH 03, 2017 sk/ap