High Court · 2025

lndiQube Lexington Tower, First Floor, Tavarekeie Main Road, Tavarbkere, S.G. Palya,

6. IDFC FIRST BANK, Rep by its Chief Manager Ground Floor, Plot No 6-7, Survey No 68, Door No 1-12111<216-7, Nearby Athidhi Restuarant, Miyapur, Serilingampalle (M), Telangana 500049 ...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 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 lndia Circular dated 12.08.2022 bearing No. RBll2O22- 23t1O8, DOR.ORG.REC.65/21.O4.158t2O22-23, 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 mrlasures against the petitioner and to strictly cornply with the due process of law and the aforesaid Circular in alt recovery proceedings, and further restrain respondent Nos. 3 to 06, theil age-nJs, recovery agents, executives, managers, or any person acting on theii:befratf 'from enga$ing in any acts of intimidation, harassment, humiliation, or intrusion,into the privacy of the petitioner or his famill, members, referees or friends;, including persistent or anonymous calls, threattrning messages, or physical v]9its to,the petitioner's premises, and further direct respondent No. 2 rto enforce the said RB! Circular in letter and spirit and to initiate appropriate ancl stringent action'against the errant officials of respondent Nlos. 3 to 06 for violating legal'norms, and pending disposal of the writ ,,,,,.,, .t": 1 .' I I I ! i I I I I I i i petition, direr:t the respondent Nos. 3 to OO not.to resort to any coercive measures against the petitioner except through lawful means and in.strict adherence to the ' Circulardaterl 12lOBt2O22. '. .' ', Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BONTHU LOKESFI PHANINDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI RAO, Deputy Solicitor of lndia Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SMT. Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI B.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: .. The Court made the following: ORDER (-, r-) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAT{GANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEIMAPAI{A WRIT PETITION No.33357 of 2o25

02.12.20.25 Between: Komkonda Venkata Surya R4ieev Mohan AND Union of India & five others ORDER: ...Petitioner Respondents Heard Sri B. Lokesh Phanindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.l, ,Smt K.Ramya, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri B.Srihari, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused the record.

2. Despite service of notice, non€ appeared for remaining respondents.

3. When the matter. is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for \ \.t petitioner submi$ed covered by thdoLd"t I that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely passed by this Court in W.P.No.520O of 2024, dated \

25.04.2024 and theiefore, the same order may be passed in this writ petition as well. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: '(8. por ttre I afot""*U reasons and as the procedure adopted by ttre 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 2 respondents, to ensure that the agents engaged by them for recorrery of the loan ambunts, shall strictly-' follow the guidelines and instnrctions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and also the judgments of the Honble Supreme Corirt in ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Prakash Kaur's case (1 supra) and ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devt Sharma's cas€ 9. With the above said direction, the lrypil petition is disposed of." (2 supra).,

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 5 arid 6 have no objection

5. Acr:ordingly, in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.S1I0O of 2024, dated 25.04.2024, and, for the reasons alike, this writ petition is; disposed of directing the respondeht authorities and their agents to scruptrlously follow the guidelines/instnrctions issued by tJ:e Reserve Bank of India in its Circular dated L2.O8.2O22 and also the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Baok litd. v. Prakash Kaur'ls case and ICICI Bank v. Shanti Devi Sharma'2s case, while recovering the loan . amounts lrom the petitioner. No costs. Pr:nding miscellaneous applications, if any, shall closed Ieooz) 2 s'cc 711 z (2008) 7 SCC s32 ,/TRUE COPY'/ ,"i'sEcfloN oFFtcER The [iecretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Tte Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of Delhi (RBl),6, Sansad Marg, To 1 2 3 4 5 6

7. One CC to SRI 8. One CC to SRI N.B 9. One CC to SRI B 1O. One CC to SMT. 11.Two CD Copies PSK.+tr / HIGH COURT .:.. ,.i ;. :] :: \ WP.No.33357 of 2O25 t t 1 ,6 t{lR, 20m * DISPO$ING OF THE WRIT PETITION W]THOUT C STS 3 >1"