Earaoam Reddv Ramasubba Reddv v. 1. Union of lndia

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancers 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 9 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. RBll2022-231 '108; DOR.OIiG.REC.65/21.04.15812022-23, and further declaring the inaction of respondent lrlo. 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 meirsures against the petitioner and to strictly comply with the due process of la,j\/ and the aforesaid Circular in all recovery proceedings, and further restrain respondent Nos. 3 to 9, 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, threaterling messages, or physical visits to the petitioners premises, and further direct 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 g for violating legal norms, and pending disposal of the writ petition, direc: the respondent Nos. 3 to g not to resort to any coercive measures against the pt:titioner except through lavyful means and in strict adherence to the Circular dated 1 2.O8.2022. Counsel for tl're Petitioner : SRI BONTHU LOKESH PHANTNDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI M.P.KASHYAP Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : - Counsel forthe Respondent No.6 : SRI R.MANGULAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to g : - 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 No.38173 of 2025 Date d: 3O.12.2025 Between: Earagam Reddy Ramasubba Reddy AND Union of India, Represented by it's Secretaryr, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & eight others .Petitioner ...Respondents OTif'T5IiH Sri Bonthu Lokesh Phanindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

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-18913 of 2024, dated 22.08.2024 and therefore, the same order may be passed in this I t , -it l I l writ petition as well. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: "8. In view of the above circulars, 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,blc .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 direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs."

4. Learn,:d Deputy Solicitor Genefal of lndia, for respondent No.l and learned Standing counsel for respondent No.3, has no objection.

5. Accorctingly, in terms of the order passed by this court in w.P.No.189l3 of 2024, dated 22.og.2o24, and. for the reasons alike, this writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities and their agents to sc:upulously follow the guidelines/instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India in its Circular dated 12.08.2022 and also the judgments o[ Qon'ble Supreme court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. prakash Kaur'rs case and ICICr Bank v. shanti Devi sharmar2s case, u,hile recovering the loan amounts from the petitioner. No costs. Miscell;rneous shall stand closed I : .S.GOWARI //TRUE COPYII 1(2OO7l2 SCC 711 2(2008) 7 SCC 532 \ To

1. TheSecretary, Un 2. The Chief General ion of lndia, Ministry of Manager, Reserve Bank of Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad

3. The Chief Manager, Rd, Karbirla Maidan 500003. Axis Bank, , Rani Gunj, Fatepuria T Hyderabad , Secunderabad, Telangana 86, Mahatma Gandhi owers, SECTION OFFICER Delhi 6-1-65, Secretariat

4. The Chief Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, No 111016013, Suryodaya, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telangana 50001 6.

5. The Chief Mahager, YES BANK, Ground Floor, Shop No.'l 1, 77' NH 65' GouthamSi Nagar Colony, Jawahar Colony, Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500050.

6. The Chief Manager, BAJAJ FINANCE Limited, 6th Floor, Bqlaj Firyerv Corporate Office, Pune-Ahmednagar Road, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharastra - 411014.

7. The Chief Manager, RBL Bank, Shop no 5-4110 85 5-4111 Ground floor' Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500050.

8. The Chief Manag6r, BOBCARD Limited, 2nd Floor, Baroda House, Behind . Dewan Shopping Centre, S.V. Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai, Maharashtra ' 9. The Chief Manager, lClCl Bank, lQlCl Bank Towers, Financial Dist, Plot No - 400102. 1 2 Nanakramguda, Gachibowli; Hyderabad, Telangana 500032.

10.one cc to sdl BoNTHU LOKESH PHANINDRA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 1 1. One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, Advocate [OPUC]

12.One CC to SRI M.P.KASHYAP, Advocate (OPUC) 13.One CC to SRI R.MANGULAL, Advocate (OPUC) 14.Two CD Copies w I t I f.' ::,"A S r2 1JAil?ffi Z * ?tr.j (:. HIGH CIOURT ATED;30/1212025 I I OFIII=til o.38173 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS .o{'A 16 *\{"