JUDGMENT : K.M. JOSEPH, J. 1. Having heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that delay in this matter be condoned. Delay will stand condoned. 2. CLMA No. 562 of 2017 stands disposed of. 3. Appellant company is the writ petitioner. Writ petition was filed by the appellant company for quashing the decision taken by the respondents Bank declaring the appellant company as willful defaulter as per RBI/Bank guidelines communicated by letter dated 30.12.2014, issued by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank to the Director of the appellant company by declaring the entire proceeding drawn pursuant to show cause notice dated 11.09.2013 as null and void as the same was in complete violation of the RBI/Bank guidelines. 4. Apparently, the appellant availed some financial facilities from the Bank. Accordingly to the Bank, the appellant did not fulfil his obligations under the contract and by annexure-10, appellant was communicated the Bank’s decision to treat the appellant company as willful defaulter. 5. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing that the appellant may approach the Review Committee. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Jain, Advocate for the respondents Bank. 7. Before this Court, the contention of the appellant was that there was no order passed or communicated to the appellant by which the appellant was treated as willful defaulter. 8. Today, when the matter came up, apparently, pursuant to the oral direction given by this Court, the respondents Bank has made available the minutes of meeting dated 28.01.2014 of the High Powered Committee on identification of willful defaulters. Therein, under Clause-c, it is stated that 15 days mandatory notice was issued to the appellant but no reply was filed. Hence, the case was reported as willful defaulter. The name of the appellant figures at serial No. 18. A copy of this order is also made available by Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the appellants. 9. Therein, under Clause-c, it is stated that 15 days mandatory notice was issued to the appellant but no reply was filed. Hence, the case was reported as willful defaulter. The name of the appellant figures at serial No. 18. A copy of this order is also made available by Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the appellants. 9. We notice that in fact, annexure 7 dated 11.09.2013 purported to be a notice sent by the Punjab National Bank to the appellant to show cause as to why it should not be declared as willful defaulter. The case of the appellant appears to be that immediately within the time provided, reply was sent. According to the respondents, reply was not sent to the concerned office. The case of the appellant, on the other hand, is that it is sent to the concerned Office. Apparently, the appellant is seeking to enforce the guidelines evolved by the Reserve Bank of India for treating a person as willful defaulter. The case of the appellant is that under the said guidelines, a Committee is to look into the matter. There is a procedure prescribed. There has been a violation of the procedure. It is submitted that in fact it is recommended that show cause be issued against the erring officer of the Bank and, according to the appellants, there is no case made out for declaring it a willful defaulter. 10. The learned Single Judge was not inclined to interfere with the decision. The learned Single Judge, however, made it clear that appellant would be at liberty to file a review before the Grievance Redressal Committee and, if the same is done within a period of 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, the same should be considered in accordance with law. 11. Shri S.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the Bank-respondent points out that the matter relates to the year 2014. He would also submit that if review is filed within 10 days from today, the Grievance Redressal Committee can consider and take decision on the same as per law. We would also think that since there is a Grievance Redressal Committee under which he can seek review, we need not interfere in this matter. 12. He would also submit that if review is filed within 10 days from today, the Grievance Redressal Committee can consider and take decision on the same as per law. We would also think that since there is a Grievance Redressal Committee under which he can seek review, we need not interfere in this matter. 12. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal as follows :- If the appellant files review before the Grievance Redressal Committee within ten days from today, the Grievance Redressal Committee will look into all the contentions of the appellant in accordance with law. We leave open all the contentions of the appellant in regard to the alleged deviation from the procedure established for declaring a person as willful defaulter. We also leave open the contentions of the appellant that appellant had replied to the show cause notice and the same was not considered.