THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3930 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is a limited company and had established an industrial unit to manufacture disposable intravenous sets and needles. It had obtained a loan of about Rs.7,00,00,000/- from the respondent under different categories. The respondent filed O.A.No.241 of 2001, for recovery of the amount, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Apart from that, it is said to have addressed a letter to the Reserve Bank of India, for inclusion of the names of the petitioner-company as well as its directors, in the list of wilful defaulters. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondent. The petitioner contends that according to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the name of an individual or a company cannot be included in the list of wilful defaulters, after any suit or similar proceedings are instituted for recovery of the amount. It is contended that once the respondent has filed O.A.No.241 of 2001, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it is impressible for it to take steps for inclusion of the names of the petitioner and its Directors in the list of wilful defaulters. The petitioner urges that such inclusion would adversely effect its reputation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that it borrowed amount from the respondent and committed default in repayment thereof. It is but natural that the respondent has recourse to all steps available to it in law, for recovery of the amount due to it. The letter, dated 29.01.2002, addressed to the petitioner would only reflect the concern and anxiety of the respondent, on account of the default committed by the petitioner. It has only indicated that it would be constrained to writ to Reserve Bank of India, for inclusion of the names of the petitioner and its Directors in the list of wilful defaulters. By itself, the said communication does not bring about any legal implication. The petitioner can be said to have suffered any detriment, if only its name is included in the list of wilful defaulters by the Reserve Bank of India. Further, the Reserve Bank of India has its own guidelines and procedure to be followed for including the name of an individual or a company in the list of willful defaulters. The petitioner can certainly make a representation to the Reserve Bank of India, as and when any steps are taken against it. The writ petition cannot be entertained just on the apprehension and it is filed without there being a valid cause of action. The writ petition was first listed for admission on 01.03.2002 and ever since, no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner. By this time, several developments may have taken place. Viewed from any angle, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 28.11.2008 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3930 of 2002 Date: 28.11.2008 JSU