Vadlamani Nageswarachary v. 1. Union of lndia

Petition under Ariicle 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 10 in attempting to recover amounts from the petitioner in an arbitrary, illegal, and high- -t EE*F handed manner without following the due process of law and in blatant violation of the Reserve Bank of lrdia Circular dated 12.09 ZO22 bearing No. RBll2OZ2-231 '108, DOR.ORG REC 65/21 .O4.is\l2022-23, and furlher dectaring the inaction of respondent No 2 in enforcing the said circular as unconstitutional and violative of Articles '1 4, i g. and 2'i of the Coastitution of lndia, and consequenfly direct the respondent authorities to refrain from undertaking any coercive or unlawful recovery nreasures agarnst the petitioner and to stricfly comply with the due process of law and the aforesaid crrcular in all recovery proceedings, and further restrain Tespondent Ncs 3 to g, 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 rnembers 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 inrtiate appropr ate and stringent action against .the errant officials of respondent Nos 3 to 10fcr violating legal norms, and pending disposal of the writ petition direct the respondent Nos. 3 to 1onot to resort to any coercive measures against the petitioner except through lawful means and in strict adherence to the Circular daled 1 ?.Oa.2022 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. DURGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M.p. KAHSYAP Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI R. RAJENDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI N. SUDARSHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.8: Ms. K. RAMyA Counsel for the Respondent No.9: SRI B. SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2,5,7&10i- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA IVRIT PETITION No.264 58 of 2025 ORDER: Sri P, Durga Rao, learned counsel for the petiticner; Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of Indla, for respondent No. 1; Sri M.p. Kashyap, Iearned counsel for respondent No.3; Sri R. Rajendra prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.4; Sri Ii. Sudarshan, learned counsel lor respondent No.6; Ms. K. Ramya, learned counsel for respondent No.B and Sri B. Srihari, learncd counsel lor respondent No.9.

2. Despite service of notice, none appeared for remaining respondents

3. When the ma[ter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitiorcr submitted rhat the issue raised in this Writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.p.No.S2O0 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 reads as under: "8. For the aforesaid reasons and as the procedure adopted by the respondent Nos.4 to 7. for recovery of loan arnount from the petitioner, a-rnounts to violation of the rights guararteed under Articles 14 attC 2I 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 fo1low the guidelines and instructions issued.by the Reserve Balk of lndia arrd also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd Vi. Prakash Kaur's case (1 supral and ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma,s case (2 supra). 9. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. " 2 responrlent Nos 1, 3, 4 6 8 ar-rd t have no

4. Leirrned counsel objectron According11", in :errns ol the ordcr passcd by this Court Lu 5. W.P.No.52OO ol 2024, d'rted 25 04 2 O24' ancj for rhe reasons alike' this writ petition is disposect of drret:ting the respondent ar.rthorities and their agents to scrupulousll' ftrliou' thr: guidclincs/ instructions issued by the Reserve Bank ol lndia in i"s Ct'-c'"ilar datccl I 2 08 2022 and also the judgments of Hon'ble Supremc Court in ICICI Bank Ltd' v' Prakash Kaur'ls case and ICICI Bank v' Shanti Devi Sharma'2s case' while recovering the loan amounts from rhe petitioncr' No costs Pcnding nliscellaneous applicattons' it any. shall stald closed' S D I M. JAWAHAR REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, TOPUCI r.r BHLiJANEA--RAd- Deputy Solicitor General of lndia

1. The Secretary,Union of lndia Ministry of Finance' New-Delhi 2 +ij; "c;l;i'c6ire-ar rvranasJ' ile"e*?: aanr of lndia (RBl)' 6' sansad Marg' New Delhi - 1'10001 3 o;; cc !, P DURGA RAo, Advocate [oPUC] ; 6;; t"c'i"sn - s b"n""Ct to SRI [I P KASHYAP, Advocate.[OPUC] .^ 6 5ll" 66 i" Siii n nnJeNDRA PRASAD, Advo-cate-[oPUC] ; 5;; ca i; SFii N sUDARSHAN, Advo-cate [oPUC] b o;; aa io Ms N RAMYA, Advocate to-ryqI. ,. O;; Ca io Snr e SRIHARI, Advocate [oPUC] 1 0. Two CD Copies 1-{ BIM BI\,'l t ! { t E I f i I E I I I i t t i I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:2711112025 ORDER WP.No.26458 ot 2025 ii':- 1tr.c .f t.",1 () () 2 J 'r il ?;116 * tsr'v ..--.-j=_ CI t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETTTION WITHOUT COSTS 6D top"a-t 4,b 0r a r\z\%