The High Court · 2025

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 6 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 tndia Circular dated 12.08.2022 bearing No. RBlt2O22- 2311O8, DOR.ORG.REC.65/21.O4.15812022-23, 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 rteasures against the petitioner and to strictly comply with the due process of law and the aforesaid Circular in all recovery proceedings, and further restrain re:spondent Nos. 3 to 6, 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 dire,:t 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 6 for violating legal norms, and pending disposal of the writ petition, direct the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 not to resort to any coercive measures against the petitioner except through laMul means and in strict adherence to the Circular daled 12.08.2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BONTHU LOKESH PHANINDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI SUDHARSHAN NARAHARI, SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2,4 TO 6: NONE APPEARED The Court rnade the following: ORDER --1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITI,ON No.3O145 of 2or25. ORDER: Heard Mr.Bonthu Lokesh Phanindra Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Sudharshan Narahari, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the record.

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

3. 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.S2OO 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 piocedure 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 21 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. Shaati Devi Sharma's case (2 supra). 9. With the above said direction, tJre writ petition is disposed of."

4. Learned Standing counsel for the respondents have no objection to the same a I f I 2

5. Accordingly, in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.52OO of 2024, dated 25.04.2024, and for the reasons alike, this rvrit petition is d.isposed of directing the respondent authorities and their agents to s<:rupulously follow the guidelines/instructions issued' by the Reserve Barr.k of India in its Circular dated. 12.Oa.2O22 and also the judgments rtf Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur'ls cas,e and ICICI Bank v. Shanti Devi Sharma'2s case, while recovering t;ee loan amounts from the petitioner. No costs. Penrling miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. \ To I \ /TRUE COPYII Sd/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER of ln ew Delhi (RBl),6, Sansad Marg,

1. The Secretary, Union of lndia nager, The Chief General Ma New Delhi - 110001

3. The Chief Manager, lClCl Bank, lclcl Bank Towers, Financial Dist, Plot No 1 2 N{anakramguda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana 500032

4. The Chief Manager, SBI Cards and Payments Services Limited (SBl Card)., DLF Cyber City, Tower C, Block 2, Building 3 DLF lnfinity Towers, 12th Floor, Gurugram, HR - 122002

5. The Chief Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, C 38/39, G Block, Crescenzo Builcling, Bandra Kurla Complex-Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051, Maharastra.

6. The Chief Manager 2401,lNDUS|ND Bank Limited, Gen. Thimmayya Road Canl:onment, Pune, Maharashtra - 411 001

7. One CC to SRI BONTHU LOKESH PHANINDRA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndier Advocate [OPUC]

9. One CC to SRI SUDHARSHAN NARAHARI, SC FOR lClcl IOPUC] 10.Two CD Copies PSK.k t(2007)zscc7iL 2 (2008) 7 SCC 5:i2 .: E I t $\ ,i; ,.,.:,,'. -t\ HIGH C}OURT DATEET:1311112025 ORDER WP.No.30145 of 2025 **. 1 HES C) L) n ? lil" lnlg i-v * i:rara\J- -i.]" DISPO.SING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHO'UT COSTS t :i I I l L c I I \v *d& 5*