Petitioner sought mandamus restraining SBI from coercive, harassing recovery methods and directing RBI to enforce its 12.08.2022 circular on recovery agent conduct. Court disposed of the petition in line with its earlier order in WP No.5200 of 2024, directing respondents to follow RBI guidelines and Supreme Court judgments on recovery practices.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3300 I
\
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Between:
Pogula Satheesh, S/o Upender Age. 27 years, Occ. Pvt Employee R/o 6-17811, V D O S Colony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban ,District Khammam, Telangana - 507002
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumsiances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, theHigh Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action ofrespondent No. 3in attempting to recover amounts from thepetitioner in an arbitrary,illegal,and high-handed manner without following the dueprocess of law and in blatant violation of the Reserve Bank of lndia Circular dated 12.08.2022 bearingNo. RBll2022-2311O8, DOR.ORG.REC.65/21.O4.15812022-23, and further declaring the inaction of respondentNo. 2 in enforcing the saidCircularas unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution oflndia, and consequently direct the respondent authorities torefrain .from undertaking any coercive or unlawful recovery measures againstthe petitionerand to strictly comply with the dueprocess oflaw and the aforesaid Circularin all recovery proceedings, and further restrain respondent No. 3, their agents,recovery agents, exeCutives,managers,or any person acting on their behalf from
engaging in erny 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 pr:mises, 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 No. 3 for violating legal norms, and pending disposal of tlre writ petition, direct the respondent Nq. 3 not to resort to any coercive measures against the petitioner except through lawful means and in strict adheren,:e to the Circular dated 12.08.2022
Counsel for ttre Petitioner: SRl. BONTHU LOKESH PHANINDRA REDDY Counsel for tl.e Respondent No.1: Smt B. KAVITHA YADAV (sc FoR CENTRAL GOVT )
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3:-
The Court macle the following: ORDER
(
I /
I,
( /' THE HoNIBLE SRI JUSTIcE NAGESH
I'leard Sri Bonthu Lokesh Phanindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt B.Kavitha Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government for respondent No.1. Perused the record
"8. For the aforesaid reasons and as' the procedure adopted by the respondent Nos.4 to 7 for recovery of loan amount frory 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 Barik of India and also thejudgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd Vs. Prakash Kaur?s case (1 supra) and ICICI Bank Vs. , Shanti l)evi Sharma's case (2 supra).
:
-_,--.
..-:i..'
. : .t,, .:
a,
t, d'
2
i,. ii lt' iir :
I
t)
,. 3 Le,erned Standing counsel did not dispute the submissions of learne,d counsel for the petitioner.
and ICICI. Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma and others2.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stratt stand'
t
:(2007)2 SCC ;'11 '(2008) 7 SCC {r32
/TRUE COPYII
SD/. U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR 6
SECTION OFFICER
To,
BM
ar PVL
I .€
HIGH GOURT
DATED:?t51101202s
ORDER
T HE S
(
() 1 i r{ l\R 7[2[
WP.No,27'194 of 2025
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
.rtb
M*
,r
1 issue framed by the court
Whether recovery agents of SBI could use coercive/harassing methods contrary to RBI Circular dated 12.08.2022 in recovering loan amounts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ICICI Bank Ltd vs. Prakash Kaur and othersFollowed¶4
(2007) 2 SCC 711 · Who else cites this
ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma and othersFollowed¶4
(2008) 7 SCC 132 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Pogula Satheesh
Union of India, Represent by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi
Reserve Bank of India (RBI)
State Bank of India
Nagesh Bheemapaka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
