ORDER :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

This order will dispose of Writ Petition Nos.25891 of 2010, 25894 of 2010, 25999 of 2010 and 3823 of 2012.

2. We have heard Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Lokirev Preetham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.25891 of 2010; Mr. L.Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Keshav Bhoopal, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.25894 of 2010; and Mr. Saurabh Bindal, learned counsel representing Mr. Keshav Bhoopal for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.25999 of 2010 & 3823 of 2012. We have also heard Mr. A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Additional Advocate General representing the State of Telangana; Mr. Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel representing State of Andhra Pradesh; and Mr. B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel representing Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

3. Initially the present batch of writ petitions were filed questioning the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation of Money Lending) Act, 2011 on the ground that it was beyond the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature. We may mention that petitioners are Non-Banking Financial Corporations (NBFCs) registered under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the RBI Act’) and regulated by the RBI.

4. The above writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide the judgment and order dated 11.02.2013 taking the view that on the same subject matter, a Central Bill of 2012 was pending before the Union Parliament.

5. This was assailed by the NBFCs before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions which was admitted into civil appeals, being Civil Appeal No.4244 of 2019 and batch.

6. In the meanwhile, the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 came into effect from 02.06.2014 bifurcating the composite State of Andhra Pradesh into the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Resultantly, the Andhra Pradesh Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation and Money Lending) Act, 2011 (was adopted by the State of Telangana whereafter a new enactment being Telangana Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation of Money Lending) Act, 2011 came to be enacted.

7. In Civil Appeal No.4244 of 2019 and batch, Supreme Court passed an order on 25.11.2019 taking the view that the High Court could not have abdicated its responsibility of deciding on the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation of Money Lending) Act, 2011 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the 2011 Act’) merely on the footing that a Central Bill of 2012, allegedly on the same subject matter, was pending before the Union Parliament. Resultantly, Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order dated 11.02.2013 and restored the writ petitions to file. The High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad was directed to dispose of the writ petitions as early as possible.

7.1. This is how the writ petitions are again before this Court.

8. Though the initial challenge to the 2011 Act was on the ground of lack of legislative competence, during pendency of the writ petitions, Supreme Court in Nedumpalli Finance Company Limited v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 588, Civil Appeal No.5233 of 2012 decided on 10.05.2022, since reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 588, has upheld the Gujarat High Court judgment declaring the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the Gujarat Act’) as unconstitutional.

9. We may mention that legislature of the State of Kerala had enacted the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the Kerala Act’) to regulate the interest to be charged by money lenders and to provide protection to borrowers. A batch of writ petitions was filed before the Kerala High Court questioning the validity of the Kerala legislation. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala had dismissed the batch of writ petitions, which order was confirm