Upon considering the submissions of the parties, it is evident that the petitioner chose to wait since February 28, 2018, when the Review Committee affirmed the order of the Wilful Defaulter Identification Committee, for as long as two years or more to come up with the present writ petition. The excuse of ongoing OTS is not sufficient to justify such delay, since discussions of One Time Settlement have no direct bearing on a declaration of wilful defaulter in any manner. Such a declaration is on the conduct of the borrower, on the basis of its past action and One Time Settlement is merely an offer by the borrower to foreclose the pending loans against it. As such, the nexus between the two, even if any, is not proximate enough to link both for the purpose of justifying the delay. Moreover, it is apparent from the documents annexed by the petitioner itself in the writ petition that the petitioner was well aware of the decisions of the Wilful Defaulter Identification Committee as well as the Review Committee since 2018 and deliberately chose not to move the writ petition. There is substance in the respondent’s contention that Jah Developers (supra) might have been a trigger for the petitioner to come up with the present writ petition. Such action on the part of the petitioner comes squarely within the purview of M/s. Rup Diamond (supra) since the petitioner was nothing but a fence-sitter in the matter.
