High Court · 2025

Reserve Banks of lndia, Rep. by its Chief General Manager, 6, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 1 10001 . 3. DFC FIRST BANK, 121llQl6-7, Sy. No. Telangana 500049. Rep. by its Chief Manager, PN 6-7, Gr Flr, D. No.1- 68, Nearby Athidi Restaurant, Miyapur, Serlingampalli (M)

4. HDFC Bank Limited, Rep. by its Chief Manager, PN 26,33/Aand34lB, Gr Flr, Delta House, Sy. No.68, Aliwyn Cross Road, Miyapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500049.

5. AXIS BANK, Rep. by its Chief Manager, JP Nagar, CG Employees Colony Mayuri Nagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500049.

6. Capfloat Financial Services, Rep. by its Chief Manager, 4th floor, S B Towers, 6-3-354, Rd Number 1, Mothi Nagar, Dwarakapuri, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500034.

7. lclCl Bank, Rep. by its Chief Manager, lClCl Bank Towers, Financial Dist. Plot. No. 12, Nanakramguda, Gachibowli Hyderabad, Telangana 500032. 8. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Manager, F9V5 plus PGC, PLOT Nos To 49, Madhava NagarColony Kandi Complex Near Sai Ranga Theatre, Miyapur. Hyderabad, Telangana 500049.

9. EarlySalary Services Pvt. Ltd., (Now known as Fibe) 31 86 32, Financial District, Nanakramguda, Serilingampally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500032 l0.Kisetsu Saison Finance lndia Pvt. Ltd., (Credit Saison lndia) 3rd Floor, Oyster Oasis Complex, H.No. 6-3-1112, Greenlands Road, Somajiguda, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telngana - 500016.

11. Cholamandalam lnvestment and Finance Company Ltd., No. 3-4-630, padma ' Plaza, Lingampally Street No.8, Narayanagudr, Near Bait Al Mashawi, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500029. l2.Krazybee Services Private Limited, 3rd Floor, No. 12819, Maruthi Sapphire, HAL Airport Road, Murgesh Palya, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560017. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not controlling the agents who harassing the petitioner and his family by the respondents Nos. 3 to '12 (bank authorities and financial institutions) is illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of natural justice and blatant violation and as well as Rules framed under Reserve Bank of lndia and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of lndia consequenfly direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner and his family members on the ground of collecting the monthly installment dues and direct respondent nos. 3 to 12 to follow circular dated 1 2.08.20 22 vide RBlt2o22-23t 1 08, DoR.oRG. REC.65/21 .04. 1 sB t2o22-23 issued by respondent no.2 and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to not take any coercive measures against the petitioner and his family without following due process of law and following circular dated 1 2 -08.2022 vide RBI I 2022-2311 08, DoR. oRG. RE c.6s/2 1 .o 4.1 sB 12022-2 issued by respondent no.2 i.e RBl, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.KESHAV YADAV Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI A.KRANTI KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 12 : The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 2234 of 2o25 ORDER This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent Nos.3 to B in not controlling their agents who are harassing the petitioner and his family which is in violation of the rules framed by Reserve Bank of India and a consequential pra-\:er is sought not to harass the petitioner and his family members on the ground of collecting the monthly installment dues and also direct respondent Nos.3 to L2 to follow Circular dated 12.O8.2022 issued by respondent No.2.

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ affidavit are that petitioner is maintaining and using the credit cards and personal loans offered by respondent Nos.3 to 12 and have been repaying the same and had no issues. The petitioner availed personal loan and credit cards from respondent Nos.3 to 12 who are the private bankers and financial institutions and utilized the amounts. However, the petitioner could pay the installment till the month of May, 2025 and presently the petitioner is not in a position to meet his'financial requirements and could not pay the installment dues. It is further submitted that agents of \l \ 2 respondent Nos.3 to 12 have been calling the petitioner and his family members and abusing in filthy language. It is further submitted that none of the recovery agents aro revealing their identity exr:ept stating that they represent the financial institution. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has already filed a suit in o.S.No.759 of 2o2s on the fire of vlll Principal Juni.r civil Judge cum Additional .Judicial Magistrate of First class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally for the sarne cause of actiorr. euestioning inaction of respondent/Banks in not controlling their agents, the present writ petition is filed.

3. It is pertinent to note that a suit in o.S.No.759 of 2o2s has been fik:d by the petitioner for the same cause of action, however, a cop-y of the plaint has not been fited along with the writ affidavir - Admittedly, it is stated in the affidavit that petitioner ha.s availed personal loan and credit cards from respondent Nos.3 to 12. The petitioner has utilized the public money and nou,here in the affidavit, stated that how much is the balance am.unt to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent/Banks and w,hen the petitioner is going to repay the said dues to r-he respondent/Banks. The petitioner is using the publii 'mone-\,' 'u'hich would drastically affect the financial J conditions of the Bank and no details have been furnished with respect to payment proposal. The petitioner, in the affidavit has also not stated regarding thq identity of the recovery agents, as such the petitioner is not sure whether the said agents are authbrized representatives of respondent/Banks.

4. [n the case of Rajasthqn Prq.d.esh Vaidga Samiti sq.rdq.rsho,har a. union of Indiar with regard to production of sufficient evidence, held at paragraph No.15 as under: " 15. It is settled propositton of law that a partg has to plead the case and produce/ adduce sufficient euidence to substantiate his submlssions made in the petition and in cq.se the pleadings a.re not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Stngh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 19BB SC 2181, this Court has obserued as under:- " ln our opinion, when a" point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the partA raistng the point, if he is the urit petttioner, must plead and proue such facts by euidence which must appear from the writ petttion and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidauiL If the facts are not pleaded or the euidence in support r12010) l2 SCC 609 4 -. .1 ( of such facls is not annexed. to the u.trit petition or the counter_affid.auit, as the cose mag be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a hearing und.er the Cod.e of Ciuil proced.ure and. a wrtt petition or a counter-affidauit. While in a plead_ing, i.e. a plaint or utritten statement, the facts and. not the euidence are required. to be plead.ed.. In a utrit petition or in the counter affid.auit, not onlg the facts but also the euid.ence tn proof of such facts haue to be plead,ed and. annexed. to it.,, 5' In yet another case, in Bharqt singh a. state of Haryana2, the Hon'ble Supreme court, with regard to evidence, at paragraph 13 held as follows: ,,As has been already nottced, although the point as to profiteering ba the state was pread.ed. in the utrit petitions before the High oourt as an abstro'ct point of law, there was no reference to ang mqten'qr in support thereof nor was the point argued. at the hearing of the utrit petitions. Before us arso, no particu'rars and- no facts haue been giuen in the speciar reaue petitions or in the writ petitions or in ang aJ.'fidauit, but the point has been sought to be substantiated at the time of hearing bg reJerring to certain facts stated- in the said. apprication by HSIDC. In our opinion, when a point which z.s osfens iblg a 21rosa;4scc534 ) point of law is required to be substantiated bg facts, the partg raising the point, if he is the wrtt pettttoner, must plead and proue such facts by eutdence uhich must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidauit. If the facts are not plead.ed. or the euid.ence iru support of such /acts fs not qnnexed to the writ petitton or to the counter, affidauit, as the case maA be, th.e court uill not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleacling under tLrc Code of Ciuil Procedure and a writ petittoru or a counter- affid.auit. White in a plead.ing, that is, a platnt or a written statement, the facts and not euidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in tLrc counter-affidauit not onlg the facts but also th.e euidence tn proof of such facts Lmue to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that ha"s been rqised before us by the appellants is not entertainable. But, in spite of that, we haue entertained'it to show that it is deuoid of ang merit." \ \

6. In the case on hand, the identity of the recovery agents is not kno'*rn and the petitioner has not produced any evidence to that effect, moreover when a suit in O.S.No.759 of 2025 is pending before the VIII Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy L 6 I t.1 District at Kukatpally, no mandamus can be issued at this juncture.

7. with the above observations and in vit:w of afore cited judgments, this writ petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission. However, petitioner is at libertv to avail appropriate remedy as available under lar,r'. Miscel[aneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no orcler as to costs. //TRUE COPY// OSMAN ALI BAIG REGIS ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI M.KESHAV YADAV, Advocate 2. One CC to SRI A.KRANTI KUMAR REDDY, Advocate] IOPUCI 3. Two CD Copies. loPu,cJ i BSK LS VT ft.. 1,.' HIGH COURT DATED:31 10712025 ORDER WP.No.22382 of 2025 fi; I J- 04li8ll M i $t +r * ; i',1.-0 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6dd" H0w