##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

WRIT PETITION No.40379 of 2025

Date: 31.12.2025

Between:

Dattatri

..Petitioner

And

Union of India,

Represented by its Secretary,

Ministry of Finance, New Delhi

and nine others

..Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

“….to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the

nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the

respondent Nos.3 to 9 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, DOR.ORG.REC. 65/21.04.158/ 2022-23

and further 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 and

consequently, direct the respondent authorities to refrain from

undertaking any coercive or unlawful recovery measures

against the petitioner and to strictly comply with the due

2

EVV, J

Wp_40379_2025

process of law and the aforesaid Circular in all recovery

proceedings and further restrain respondent Nos.3 to 9, 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 petitioner’s premises and further 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 9 for violating legal norms and

pending disposal of the writ petition direct the respondent Nos.3

to 9 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 and pass…”

2. Heard Sri Bonthu Lokesh Phanidra Reddy, learned counsel

for the petitioner, Smt.B.Kavita Yadav, learned Standing Counsel

for respondent No.1 and with their consent, this writ petition is

being taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. It is the case of petitioner that he availed the credit card

facility and personal loan from respondent Nos.3 to 9, who are the

bankers and private financial institutions and utilised the amounts

and he has been prompt in repaying the same without fail. It is

further case of the petitioner that he has been regularly paying the

instalments in terms of the agreement till November, 2025 and

thereafter, he could not pay the instalment. It is also case of the

3

EVV, J

Wp_40379_2025

petitioner that respondent Nos.3 to 9 without following the

guidelines of RBI, has been sending the loan recovery agents to his

house and harassing to pay the amounts due as per the

calculation of respondents.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are

entitled to recover loan amount in terms of the loan agreements by

following the procedure established under law and they are not

having any right to recover the loan amount by using force.

5. The issues raised in this writ petition are no longer res

integra as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. vs.

Prakash Kaur and others1, while dealing with the similar issues

where the banks engaged the services of recovery/ collection

agents to recover the loans, observed as follows:

“16. Before we part with this matter, we wish to make it clear

that we do not appreciate the procedure adopted by the Bank in

removing the vehicle from the possession of the writ petitioner.

The practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is

deprecated and needs to be discouraged. The Bank should

resort to procedure recognised by law to take possession of

vehicles in cases where the borrower may ha