Telangana High Court
Gundepuri Srikanth vs Union Of India on 16 September, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.26023 of 2025
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or
Direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, i) declaring
the action of respondent Nos.3 to 4 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 India Circular dated 12.08.2022 bearing No. RBI/2022-23/ 108,
OR.ORG.REC.65/21.04.158/2022-23, ii) 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 India, iii) direct the
respondent authorities to refrain from undertaking any coercive or unlawful
recovery measures against the petitioner and to strictly comply with the due
process of law and the aforesaid Circular in all recovery proceedings,
iv) restrain respondent Nos.3 to 4, 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 petitioners
premises, v) 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 4 for violating legal norms, and pending
disposal of the writ petition and vi) direct the respondent Nos. 3 to 4 not to
resort to any coercive measures against the petitioner except through lawful
means and in strict adherence to the Circular dated 12.08.2022.
2. Heard Ms. Thakur Manaswini Singh, learned counsel representing
Sri B. Lokesh Phanindra Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for Central Government, for the respondent-Central
Government.
3. Despite service of notice, none appeared for remaining respondents.
4. 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."
5. Learned Standing Counsel for Central Government has no objection.
6. 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. Vs. Prakash 1 Kaur's case and
ICICI Bank 2Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma's case.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Dated 16.09.2025
myk
1 (2007) 2 SCC 711
2 (2008) 7 SCC 532
