Gadamsetty Venkata Lakshmi Kiran v. 1. Union of lndia

10.Bhanix Finance and lnvestment Ltd, Rep. by its chlel manager.Slhfloor' '-'Filiil; "i{d;l p r.rig"t,-6oinpnvels cotoiy, Mayuri Nagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad, 11.AXIS BANK, Rep by its Chief lvlanagerGround FIoor, Sriven Mall, IVliyapu.r Telangana 500049 ::. ,r:xil.,:i:.:tt, _':; ''r:ji+::: -

12.TATA CAPITAL, Rep. by its Chief Manager, 11th Floor, TowerA, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai, Maharastra - 40001 3.

13.BoB Financial Solutions Limited, Rep by its Chief Manager, Behind Diwan Shopping Centre, 2nd and 4th Floor, Baroda House, S.V. Road, Jogeshwari, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400102. ...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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent Nos. 3 to 13 in attempting to recover amounts from the petitioner in an arbitrary, illegal, and high- handed manner without following the due process of law and in blatant violation of the Reserve Bank of lndia Circular dated 1210812022 bearing No. RBI/2022-231 108, DOR.ORG.REC.65121.O4.158t2O22-23, and further declaring the inaction of respondent No. 2 in enforcing the said Circular as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the respondent authorities to refrain from undertaking any coercive or unlawful recovery measures against the petitioner and to strictly comply with the due process of law and the aforesaid Circular in all recovery proceedings, and further restrain respondent Nos.3 to 13, their agents, recovery agents, executives, managers, or any person acting on their behalf from engaging in any acts of intimidation, harassment, humiliation, or intrusion into the privacy of the petitioner or his family members, referees or friends, including persistent or anonymous calls, threatening messages, or physical visits to the petitioner's premises, and further direct respondent No. 2 to enforce the said RBI Circular in letter and spirit and to initiate appropriate and stringent action against the errant officials of respondent Nos. 3 to 13 for violating legal norms, and pending disposal of the writ petition, direct the respondent Nos. 3 to 13 not to resort to any coercive measures against the petitioner except through lawful means and in strict adherence to the Circular dated 12lOBl2O22. cou nse I ror the Pet iti o n e r' ?l[tJllftsT,$fl iyrHl?i ]ff i-, N D RA R E D Dy Counselfor the Respondent No.1 : SRI ANGOTHU NEHRU, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : SRI G.PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR BANK Counsel for the Respondenl No.2to7,9t_o:l_3 : _ _.. ::. ._, The Court made the following: ORDER .. ..r:r.irii;fi ..-: i . r. 1i:,+*d.rir-i' . Ct o r"'l THI HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETTTION o-25685 of 2o.25, ORDER: Heard smt Thakur Manaswini Singh, learned counsel representing Sri Bonthu Lokesh Phanindra Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Angothu Nehru, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government for respondent No.1 and Sri G.Praveen Kumar, Iearned Standing Counsel for INDUSIND Bank. 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 covered 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 petition as well. The operative portion of the said order ieads as under: i I i I Ij i I I I i I I I l t I i I i : "8. For the aforesaid reasons and as the procedure adopted by the respondent Nos.4 to 7 for recovery of loan amount from the petitioner, amounts to violation of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 2l of the Constitution of India, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents, to ensure that the agents engaged by them for recovery of the loan amounts, shall strictly follow the guidelines and instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Prakash Kaur's case (1 supra) and ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma's case (2 supra). 9. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of." 2 3' Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the subrnissions ul learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. I. terms of the order passed by this court in w.p.No.S2oo of 2024, d.ated 2s.o4.2o24, and.for the reasons alike, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to scrupurousry follow the guiderines/instructions in the RBI circuiar datecr 12.08.2022, and arso the judgments of Hon,ble Supreme court in rcICI Bank Ltd vs. prakash Kaur and othersr and Icrcr Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma and othersz. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sharl stand closed. I I To, /TRUE COPY// ) SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY SrsrRrur OFFICER

1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, tt/inistry of 2. The Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of I New Delhi - 1100.01 Delhi (RBl),6, Sansad Marg,

3. One CC to SRt AbNTHU LOKESH PHANINDRA REDDY, Advocatd. TOPUCI 4. One CC to SRI ANGOTHU NEHRU, SC for Central Government' [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI G.PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC for INDU SIND Bank Limited' IoPUCI

6. Two CD CoPies. BSK TKS NT p i HIGH COURT DATED:1210912025 to'l{HES o L) ? g JAl'| 2026 't I I ORDER WP.No.25685 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS p( ro\\* .' -.'. \.!-,*{ffi'+.rffi-+*!d*.{!*!+i",:- ...