The main legal point established in the judgment is that the frequent phone calls did not invade the petitioner's right to privacy, and the writ petition for a Mandamus and compensation was not maintainable against the bank.

1. One Mr.R.Sriram has borrowed money, using his credit card from HDFC Bank Limited, Chennai and according to the petitioner, there was a due of Rs.63,000/-. As some of the staff members from the legal department of the first respondent-Bank, have said to have called up the defaulter frequently, over phone and pressurized him to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards dues, the petitioner was requested by the credit card holder to negotiate with the Bank. The petitioner informed his client that banking institutions would impose nominal interest for the dues and there would be a necessity to pay the same, for which, his client aggrieved. Thereafter, the petitioner advised his client to instruct the employees of the Bank, to speak to him. On 26.02.2010, about 6.30 P.M., 07.03 P.M., and 07.06 P.M., the petitioner received telephone calls in his mobile No.98406 91190 from 044-30987105, 044-30987124 and 044-30987220 from some people, who identified themselves as Mr.Karthick @ Sathish, Mr.Shyam, Mr.Rajesh and Mr.Suresh and asked the petitioner, regarding payment towards the dues from the said Mr.Sriram. When the petitioner told the Collection Personnel to collect the money from the concerned person, to whom, they have lent, the abovesaid persons abused the petitioner, using filthy and parliamentary language and degraded him. According to the petitioner, the words uttered are unworthy to be reproduced. Though the petitioner started to lose his temper, his colleague, one Mr.Solomon, Advocate, advised him to record the telephonic conversation and produce the same before the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, B-1 North Beach Police Station, Chennai, the second respondent herein. Accordingly, he recorded the conversation and made a complaint, dated 26.02.2010 to the second respondent. Though CSR number was assigned, no action was taken. According to the petitioner, the person, who spoke to him over phone, threatened him with dire consequences.

2. It is the further case of the petitioner that whenever, he went to the Police Station, one Mr.Selvaraj, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the said Police Station, informed him that they tried to contact the concerned officials of the bank and though oral instructions were issued to them to appear for an enquiry, there was no response and that the Superintendent of Police was given a reply that the General Manager of the Bank would speak to the Deputy Commissioner in this regard. The Sub-Inspector of Police also informed that the petitioner need not call him again, in this regard. Subsequently, when he met the second respondent, one Mr.Sudhakar, Sub-Inspector of Police, was with him and when the petitioner enquired about the status of the complaint, the said Mr.Sudhakar curtly told him that the Police were not his servants and that the petitioner was trying to circumvent the law and thereby, evading payment from his client. He also warned the petitioner that if his client does not make any payments, as demanded by the officials of the first respondent-Bank, he would have to face the consequences.

3. The petitioner has further submitted that instead of initiating criminal action on the complaint, preferred by him, he was forced by the Police to withdraw the complaint preferred on 26.02.2010. He was also informed that already a retired Deputy Commissioner of Police had already spoken in this regard, with the second respondent and since the petitioner is an individual, he would not be able to face the brunt of wrath of the first respondent, an institution, which has got unlimited sources. In these circumstances, on 15.03.2010, the petitioner was informed that the officials of the Bank had come to the Police Station and he was asked to go outside. Some unknown persons, who were present in the Office of the second respondent, abused the petitioner in filthy language and asked him to give a letter in writing, withdrawing the complaint. At that time, the second respondent, remained a mute spectat