THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.30164 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri M.Keshav Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1, Ms.Shresth Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Sri M.P.Kashyap, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Smt T.Vidya Rani, learned Standing Counsel for BOI, for respondent No.6 and Smt K.Ramya, learned counsel for respondent No.7. 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 respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7 have no objection.

5. Learned Standing counsel for respondent No.6 opposed for the same relying on the Judgment dated 13.08.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Division bench of this Court in W.P.No.567 of 2019, wherein the said W.P. was disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to workout remedies available under law against respondent private financial institutions. She further relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs.Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and

1 others., wherein it was observed and held in paragraph No.12 as follows:

Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition against the private financial institution – ARC- appellant herein under Article 226 of the constitution of India against the proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable. In the present case, the ARC proposed to take action/actions under the SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount as a secured creditor. The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State Authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the Bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the Bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State Authorities. If proceedings are initated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. Therefore, decisions of this Court in the cases of Praga Tools Corporation (supra) and Ramesh Ahluwalia (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel

1 Civil Appeal Nos.257-259 of 2022

appearing on behalf of the borrowers are not of any assistance to the borrowers.

6. Be that as it may, However, 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