Telangana High Court
Basava Srikanth vs The Union Of India on 12 November, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.34316 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Mr.M.Keshav Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.S.Vasudevan, learned Counsel representing Mr.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1. 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.5200 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 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. Shanti Devi Sharma's case (2 supra).
9. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of."
4. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the same. 2
5. Accordingly, in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5200 of 2024, dated 25.04.2024, and for the reasons alike, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities and their agents to scrupulously follow the guidelines/instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India in its Circular dated 12.08.2022 and also the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur' 1s case and ICICI Bank v. Shanti Devi Sharma' 2s case, while recovering the loan amounts from the petitioner. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Dated 12.11.2025 dgr 1 (2007) 2 SCC 711 2 (2008) 7 SCC 532