Nusum Venkata Ravi Kumar Reddy v. 1. The Union of lndia

6. IDFC First Bank, Rep. by its Chief Manager, IDFC FIRST Bank Ltd, The Square, C-61, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051

7. lClCl Bank, Rep. by its Chief Manager, lClCl Bank Towers, Financial Dist. Plot. No. 12, Nanakramguda, Gachibowli Hyderabad, Telangana 500032. 8. AXIS BANK, Rep by its Chief Manager Ground Floor, Sriven Mall, Miyapur Rd, JP Nagar, CG Employees Colony, Mayuri Nagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500049

9. SBI Cards and Payments Services Limited (SBI Card)., Rep. by its General Manager, Unit Nos 3C 3D and 3E, 3rd Floor, Queens Plaza, SP Road Secunderabad, Telangana - 500003 l0.lnduslnd Bank Ltd, Rep by its Chief manager, 1-8-488, Sardar Patel, Begumpet, Secunder'abad -500003.

11.HDFC l3ank Ltd, Rep by its Chief manager, HDFC bankSth Floor, Tower B, Peninsula Business Park, Lower Parel West, Mumbai 400013 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancet; stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to ist;ue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [Mandamus, (a) declaring the action of the respondents in not controlling the agents who harassing the petitioner and his family by the respondents Nos. 3 to 11 (bank authorities an,J financial institutions) is illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of naturaljustice and blatant violation and as well as Rules framed under Reserve Bank of lndia and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of lndia. (b) consequertly direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner and his family members on the ground of collecting the monthly installment dues and direct respondent ncrs. 3 to 11 to follow Circular dated 12lOBl2O22 vide RBlt2O22- 23t 108, DOR.OR3. REC.65/21.04.15812022-23 issued by respondent no 2 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition underSection 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 not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner and not to harass him and his family without following due process of law and following Circular dated 12.08.2022 vide RBll2o22-23t 10g,DoR. ORG.REC.65121.04.15812022-2 issued by RBl, pending disposal of the writ petition . CounsetforthePetitioner:SRIMKESHAVYADAV counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 &2: B KAVITHA YADAV (GENTRAL Govr couNSEL) counsel for the Respondent No. 7: SRI G. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY' Counsel for the Respondent No.10: SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR GAJULA Counset for the Respondent Nos'3'4'5'6'8'9 & 11: -- The Court made the following: ORDER - THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGEST.I BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PEIITION No.2315O of 2o25 ORDER: I{earcl Sri Bonthu Lokesh Phanindra Reddy, learned counsel representinl] Sri M.Keshav Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1, sri G.Kalyan chakravarthy, learned counsel for respondent No.7 and Sri Praveen Kumar Gajula, learned counsel for respondent No.1O. Perused the record.

2. when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this Writ petition is squarely co',iered by the order passed by this Court in w.p.No.520o of 2024, dated 25.04.2024 and therefore, the same order may be passed in this writ pel.ition as well. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: ''8. For the aforesaid reasons and as the procedure edopted by the respondent Nos.4 to 7 for recovery of ..oan amount from the petitioner, €unounts to violation of ':he rights guaranteed under Articles i4 and 2l of the ,lonstitution of India, this Court deems it appropriate to rlirect tJ:e respondents, to ensure that the- agents ,:ngaged by them for recovery of the loan amounts, ihall r;trictly follow the guidelines and instructions issued by t-he Reserve Bank of India and also the judgments of the l-Ionble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. prakash lKaur's case (1 supra) and ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devi lJharma's case (2 supra). \). With the above said direction, the writ petition is rlisposed of." 2

3. Learned Stand{ng Counsel does not dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the'petitioner.

4. In terms of the order passed b5r this Court in W.P.No.520O of 2024, dated 25.04.2024, and for the reasons alike, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to scrupulously follow the guidelines/instructions in the RBI Circular dated 12.O8.2O22, and also the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Prakash Kaur and othersl and ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma and others2. Pending miscellaneous applications, if &oy, shall stand closed. SD/. K.BHA\/ANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi The Reserve Bank of lndia, Rep. by its Chief General Manager, 6, Sansad Marg, New Delhi -110001 lCl6l Bank, Rep. by its Chief Manager, lClCl Bank-Towers, Fin-an-cial Dist. ptoi. tto. 11, Nahakiamguda, Gachibowli Hyderabad, Telangana 500032. lnduslnd Bank Ltd, Rep by its Chief manager, 1-8-488, Sardar Patel, Begumpet, Secunderabad -500003. One CC to SRl. M KESHAV YADAV Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. B KAVITHA YADAV (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)Advocate IoPUCI one cc to SRl. G. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, Advocate [oPUC] One CC to SRl. PRAVEEN KUMAR GAJULA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies To,

9. hlT PVL TKS HIGH COURT DATED i07110t2025 ORDER WP.No.23150 of 2025 lHE S Te I ? I Jtt'| 2026 o C) ( * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ;\"