Chavutoo.r:L.Kishore Babu v. 1. Union of lndia

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, dectaring the action of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in attempting to recover amounts from the petitioner. in an arbitr-ary, illegal,-and-.- high-handed manner without following the due process of Iaw and in blatant violationoftheReserveBankoflndiaCirculardated.12:O8:2o22-bearing-No.- RBtt2022-23t108, DOR.ORG.REC.65/21.O4.158t2022-23, 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 I coercive or tlnlawful recovery measures against the petitioner and to strictly comply with :he due process of law and the aforesaid Circular in all recovery proceedings, and further restrain respondent Nos. 3 to 5, 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 thr> petitioner or his family members, referees or friends, including persistent or anonyrnous calls, threatening messages. or physical Visits to the petitioners prt>mises, and further direct respondent No. 2 to enforce the said RBI Circular in letler and spirit and to initiate appropriate and stringent action against the errant oficials of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for violating legal norms, and pending disposal of the writ petition, direct the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 not to resort to any coercive measures against the petitioner except through lawful means and in strict adherence to the circular dated 12.09.2022. counsel for ttre Petitioner: SRt BONTHU LOKESH PHANINDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI ANGOTHU NEHRU, SC FOR CENTRAL GOW. Counsel for tlre Respondent No.3: SMT K.RAMYA The Court ma,le the following: ORDER THT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA S/RIT PETITION o.26087 of 20.25 ORDER: Heard. Sri Bonthu Lokesh Phanindra Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, sri Angothu Nehru, learned central Government Stand,ing counsel for respond.ent No.l, Smt K.Ramya, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 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 ifl this writ petition as well. The operative portion of the said ord.er reads as under: t t "8. For the aforesaid reasons and as the 7 for procedure adopted by the respondent Nos'4 !o- i""orr"ry of loan amount from the petitioner, to violation of the rights guaranteed under "*o.rrri" Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India, this Court deeim.s 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 gank of Ind,ia and also the judgments of the Flonble ,suprerqe Court'in ICICI Bank l'l! ls' Prakash Kanir's caSe,(tr'-supra') and TCICI Bank Vs' Shanti Devi SharmC's case (2 supra) g. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of." : r ir,, f.falla:i , . . . :.-.rr,igll*..ij: j'i i.,i.i*ffi ' '.:1iri,;:11i95-1ffii* : .',..:..1'r:X+sffiEEE4 2

3. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the submissions of learned cr>unsel for the petitioner.

4. [n terms of the order. passed by this :Court in W.P.No.5200 of 2024, dated t25.O4.2024, and for the reasons alike, this writ petition is disposr:d of directing the respondent authorities to scrupulously follow the guidelines/instructions in the RBI Circular dated 1,2.O8.2O22, itnd, also the judgments of Honbte Supreme Court in ICICI Banrk Ltd Vs. Prakash Kaur and othersl and ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma and others2. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. rl (aoo+)Jscc{tl . J) (.tooe) Aicc c3, //TRUE COPY/ SD/- B.REKHA RANI TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER i' I i To,

1. The Se,:retary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, Un 2. The Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of lndia (RBl), 6, Sansad Marg, New Derlhi - 110001

3. The Chief ft/anager, HDFC BANK Ltd, PN 26, 33lA and 34/B, Gr Flr, Delta House, Sy No 68, Allwyn Cross Road Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500049

4. The Chief Nlanager, Bajaj Finance Ltd, Ground Floor, Gachi Plaza, Plot No TT,Vinayak Nagar, lndira Nagar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana 500032 5. The Chief Manager, HDB Financial Services Limited, Ground Ftoor, Zenith House, Keshavrao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400034

6. One CC to SRI BONTHU LOKESH PHANINDRA REDDY, Advocate TOPUCI 7. One CC to SMT K.RAMYA, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI ANGOTHU NEHRU, SC FOR CENTRAL GOW. IOPUCI 9. One CC) to DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC]

10.Two CD Copies BSR #+l- TKS .-:,,:'. .,. : --_-.@: .:, ir' ::l ii . -. rti'ii$l-l 14 HIGHCOURT DATED i 2410912025 4 e O 1g I [8 2026 * ORDER WP.No.26087 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @ d( ^\)'o