ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. prakash Kaur and othersr rL rl ICICJ Bank vs Shanti Devi Sharma and othersz.

5. IDFC FIRST BANK, Rep by its Chief f\rlanager Ground Floor, Plot No 6-7, Survey No 68, Door No 1-121lKzl6-7, Nearby Athidhi Restuarant, Miyapur, Serilingampalle (M), Telangana 500049

6. Shriram Finance Limited, Rep by its Chief lt/anager, Wockhardt Towers, 3rd Floor, West Wing, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Sandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 , Maharashtra. ...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 6in 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 12.08.2022 bearing No. RBI/2022- 23148, DOR.ORG.REC.65/21 .04.15812022-23, and fu(her leclaring the inaction of respondent No. 2 in enforcing the said Circular as uncons of Articles 14, 19, and 2'1 of the Constitution of lndia, and r: respondent authorities to refrain from undertaking any recovery measures against the petitioner and to strictly process of law and the aforesaid Circular in all iecovery prc restrain respondent Nos.3 to6 their agents, recover./ managers, or any person acting on their behalf from eng intimidation, harassment, humiliation, or intrusion-into the p r or his family members, referees or friends, including pers calls, threatening messages, or physical visits to the peti:l further direct respondent No. 2 to enforce the said RBI Cirr:r and to initiate appropriate and stringent action against t respondent Nos. 3 TO 6for violating legal norms, and pend r petition, direct the respondent Nos. 3 TO 6not to resort to . t against the petitioner except through laMul means and in ; Circular daled 1 2.08.2022. itutional and violative nsequently direct the ;rercive or unlawful ),rmply with the due :eedings, and further agents, executives, aging in any acts of vacy of the petitioner iiitent or anonymous r ner's premises, and lar in letter and spirit rr) errant officials of 9 disposal of the writ 1' coercive measures rict adherence to the Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI BONTHU LOKESH PHANlrr IRA REDDy Counsel for the Respondents No.1 : MTs.B.KAVITHA YADI,' ' (sc FoR CENTRAL GOVT O ) UNSEL) Counsel for the Respondents No.2to4 : -- Counsel for the Respondents No.5 : SRI B.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondents No.6 : SRI N.SRIKANTH GO|J l The Court made the following: ORDER w /rr' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.27256 of 2025 ORDER: l]eard Ms.Thakur Manasr,i'ini Singh, learned counsel representing Sri Bonthu Lokesh Phanindra Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. B.Kavitha Yadav, learned Standing Counscl for Cer-rtral Government for respondent No. 1, Sri B.Srihari, Iearned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri N.Srikanth Goud, learned counscl lor respondent No.6. Perused the record.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioncr subrnitted that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered b-y the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.S2OO of 2024, dated 25.04.2024 and therefore, the same order ma1 be passcd in this r'r'rit petition as well. The operative portion of thc saicl order rc:rds as under: "8. For the aforesaid reasons and as the procedure aclopted 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 arld 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 disposcd ol." I I \ z

3. Learnecl Counsel for the respondents ri < not rtispute rhe submissions cf learned counsel for the petitionel

4. In rernis of thc orcier passr,cl by this Cour. ie W.p.No.520O ol 2021' dttLcd 2r.or.2021, and lor Lire reasons a!rl , , this rvrit petition is disposed ol rlirct.1il1g thc rcsponclent auth<jr tt :j to s(.i-u pu Iou si-\. follo',r. the gurdelines/instructicns in the Il l Circular dated 12.O8.2022, and also the judgments of Hon,blc iupreme Courr in ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. prakash Kaur and othersr rL rl ICICJ Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma and othersz. Pcnding miscelianeou_q applications, 1I i I r,, shall stand 1 I i I I To, //TRUE COPY// SD. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ,/ A: SISTANT REGISTRAR / SEcTI6,n?6FFIcER 'I . .The Secretary Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Ne ', Delhi ,r"rn"r, Reserve Bank of rndia (rI )r), 6, Sansad Marg, ' il:i"#i|.I,9:?361 3. One CC to SRt BONTHU LOKESH PHAN|NDRA REt) ).y, Advocate. tOpUCl t to SRI B KAVITHA YADAV, (SC FOR CENrrt \L GoW COUNSEL) ff""r??

5. One CC to SRI B.SRtHAR|, Advocate. tOpUCI 6. One CC to SRt N.SRIKANTH GOUD, Advocate. [OpU( ] 7. Two CD Copies \ BSK TJ OM | {2007) 2 SCC 777 , (2008) 7 scc 532 \ I:\ ).J () ]HE S Ie Il ftR illl * Lr -.r-'O HIGH COURT DATED:1411012025 ORDER WP.No.27256 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS s\\ \3\