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 06 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 rndia circurar dared 12.o8.2022 bearing No. RBrt2022-23t 108, DOR.OFIG.REC.65/21.04.15812022-23, and further decraring the inaction of respondent Nc. 2 in enforcing the said Circular as unconstitutional and violative of Articres 14, 19, and 21 0f the constitution of rndia, and consequen,y direct the respondent authorities to refrain from undertaking any coercive or unra*fur recovery measures against the petitioner and to stricry compry with the due process of laur and the aforesaid circurar in arr recovery proceedings, and further restrain respcndent Nos. 3 to 06, their agents, recovery agents, executives, managers, or any person acting on their behalf from engaging in any acts of intimidation, hirrassment, humiriation, or intrusion into the privacy of the petitioner or his famiry rnembers, referees or friends, incruding persistent or anonymous calls, threaten ng messages, or physical visits to the petitioner,s premises, and further direct n>spondent No. 2 to enforce the said RBr circurar in retter and spirit and to initiate appropriate and stringent action against the errant officials of respondent Nos. 3 to 06 for viorating regar norms, and pending disposar of the writ petition, direct rhe respondent Nos. 3 to 06 not to resort to any coercive measures against the pet tioner except through raMur means and in strict adherence to the Circular dated 1 2.O8.2022 Counsel for the. petitioner : SRt BONTHU LOKESH Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, 'HANINDRA REDD' DEPUTY SOL]CITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel forthe Respondent No.4 : SRI A. SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 : Ms. K. RAMYA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : __ The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No.326A2 of 2o25 o4.12.2025 Between: Doodam Raju Kumar AND The Union of India & five others ORDER: ...Petitioner ...Respondents Sri B. Lokesh Phanindra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1; Sri A. Srikanth, Iearned counsel for respondent No.4 and Ms. K. Ramya, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

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

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner sr-rbmitted that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.52O0 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 amount from the petitioner, amounts to violation of the rights 2 r \ suaranteed 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 ,..rrr.ry of the loan amounts, shall strictly follow the zuidelines and instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of i-ndia and also the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Prakash Kaur's case (l supra) and ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma's case (2 supra). g. \,Vith the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of'" 4 Learn,=d counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 have no objection

5. Accor<lingly, in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.S2OO of 2024, dated 25.04.2024, and for the reasons alike, this writ petition is d Lsposed of directing the respondent authorities and their agents to scrupulopsly follow the guidelines/instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India in its Circular dated I2.O8.2O22 and also the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur,ls case and rclcl Bank v. shanti Devi sharma'2s case, while recovering the loan amounts frorn the petitioner. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed l1zoot12 scc 111 '(2008) 7 SCC 532 To //TRUE COPYII

1. The Secretary, Ministry of Firnance, Union of tndia, 2 331fri_"fiSSA!Manaser, Reserve Bank of tndia (RBt), 6, Sansad Mars, New SD/. P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGTSTRAR OFFICER Delhi --%Ja-- / /

3. Chief Manager, Piramal Finance Limited, 4th Floor, piramal Tower, peninsula "--" corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam tt/arg, l-oweipjrei, tttrinun +bootJ. 4- chief lYg.n?g"r,.prayaan.Qqpqtal^fvt Ltd, No. 11, piilayar Koit 2nd cross street, Krishna Nagai, PAMMAL, Chennai,'Tarir rrriol, inf i" - o-oools. - -- 5' Chief Manager, BAJAJ FINANCE, 6th Floor, Bajaj Finsery Corporate Office, Pune-Ahmednagar Road, Viman Nagar, pune,-tvt'itirrjrir, - 411014.

6. Chief Mana,g-er, HDB-Financial Services Limited, Ground Floor, Zenith House, Keshavrao Khadye Marg, Maharaxmi, Mumbii- +ooosril

7. One CC to SRI BONTHU LOKESH PHANINDRA REDDY, Advocate [OpUC] B' One.'.QC to SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of tndia IoPUCI

9. One CC to SRt A. SR|KANTH, Advocate [OpUC] 10.One CC to Ms. RAMyA, Advocate tOpUCl 11.Two CD Copies PVUMP $q/"' F I i \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:0411212025 .lt .j *rE t" ..) 1 0 rtB 2[2$ * + ORDER WP.No.32682 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .rt\ ,\-6