Kukkaiahgari Krishna Reddy Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Kukkaiahgari Krishna Reddy Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the order in W.P.No.5200 of 2024 dated 25.04.2024, directing the respondent authorities to scrupulously follow the guidelines/instructions in the RBI Circular dated 12.08.2022 and the Supreme Court judgments in ICICI Bank Ltd v. Prakash Kaur and ICICI Bank v. Dhanti Dewi Sharma; pending miscellaneous applications closed; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No. 3 (HDFC Bank) in attempting to recover amounts from the petitioner without following the RBI Circular dated 12.08.2022 and due process of law is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. +1 more

Court's answer

In terms of, and for the reasons alike, the order of this Court in W.P.No.5200 of 2024 dated 25.04.2024, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to scrupulously follow the guidelines/instructions in the RBI Circular dated 12.08.2022 and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd v. Prakash Kaur and ICICI Bank v. Dhanti Dewi Sharma.

Ratio / Principle

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed; no costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.), in a writ petition under Article 226 by Kukkaiahgari Krishna Reddy challenging HDFC Bank's attempt to recover amounts from him allegedly in an arbitrary and high-handed manner without following the RBI Circular dated 12.08.2022 (No. RBI/2022-23/108, DOR.ORG.REC.65/21.04.158/2022-23), and the alleged inaction of RBI in enforcing that Circular, held the issue squarely covered by its earlier order in W.P.No.5200 of 2024 (dated 25.04.2024) and disposed of the petition directing the respondent authorities to scrupulously follow the guidelines/instructions in the said Circular and the Supreme Court judgments in ICICI Bank Ltd v. Prakash Kaur ((2007) 2 SCC 711) and ICICI Bank v. Dhanti Dewi Sharma ((2008) 7 SCC 532). Pending miscellaneous applications were closed; no costs.

t³³⁰⁰¹

]N THE H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION NO: 27206 OF 2025

Between:

Kukkaiahgari Krishna Reddy, C/o. Kukkaiahgari Rami Reddy, Age. 40 years, Occ. Pvt Employee, No. 2-772, Kota Street, Nadi Kotkur, Kumool, Andhra Pradesh - 518401

...PETITIONER

AND

Union of lrdia, Represent by it's Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi

Reserve Bank of lndia (RBl), Represent by its Chief General Manager, 6, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001 .

HDFC Bank Limited, Rep by its Chief Manger, No 1/ 10/60/3, Suryodaya, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telangana 50001 6.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No. 3 in attempting to recover amounts from the^petilioner in an arbitrary, illegal, and highhanded manner without following the due process of law and in blatant violation of the Reserve Bank of lndia Circular dated 12.08-2022 bearing No. RBll2O22-231108, DOR.ORG.REC.65/21 .0415812022-23, 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 lndia, 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^process of law and^{the aforesaid Circularin all recovery}

proceedings, and further restrain respondent No. 3, their agen j, recovery agents, executives, managers, or any person acting on their behalf f^-r m engaging in any acts of intimidation, harassment, humiliation, or intrusion in < the privacy of the petitioner or his family members, referees or friends, inc I rding persistent or anonymous calls, threatening messages, or physical visits to the petitioner's premises, and further direct respondent No. 2 to enforce the ;aid RBI circular in lefter and spiiit and:to initiate appropriate and stringent acti: r against the errant officials of respondent No. 3 for violating legal norms, and p(,r ding disposal of the writ petition, direct the respondent No. 3 not to resort to arl coercive measures against the petitioner except through lawful means and in s.r ct adherence to the Circula r daled 1 2.O8.2022.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MS THAKUR MANASWIN| SINGt REPRESENTTNG BONTHU LOKESH PHANI IDRA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent No 1: B KAVITHA YADAV SC t OR (CENTRAL GOvT)

Counsel for the Respondents No 2 & 3: --

The Court made the following: ORDER

I t

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.272o,6 of2025

ORDER:

Heard Ms. Thak1r ,'Manaswini Singh, learned counsel representing Sri Bonthu Lokesh Phanindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. B.Kavitha Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government for respondent No. 1. Perused the record.

When the matter is tal<en up for hearing, Iearned^{counsel for} '. petitioher submitted that thg issue raised^{in this Writ Petition is} squarely covered by:the^order Passed^{by this Court in W'P'No'52O0} of 2024, dated^{25.04 .2024and therefore, the same order may be} passcd in this^{writ petitionas well' The operative portion of the said} order reads^{as under:}

"a. For. the^{aJoresaid reasons and as} -the .."""a*. adopted^{by the respondentNos 4 t'o 7 for} of ioan^{amount from the petrttoner'} ;;;; fi:;i" tl'tr.i"tl",,of^{the rightsguaranteed'under} il;#; 1;il^{iror tr'" coistitutionor.lndia'this} Court deems^{itaPpropriate} 'o -- 1'i:::-rtn' resoondents,^{to ensure'tf'"itf'" agents engagedby} [:Hffirel;;;ry^{of the loan amounts'shall'strictlv} follow^the fuidelines^{alJ instructions issued by the} Reserve^{Bank of fnaia a"J also the judqm-enlsof} ;:;;;# i"preme^{court in rcICI Bank-Ltd Vs'} ila;J KJt;!^{case(1 supra) and ICICI Bank vs'} ill"ai-o""i^{Sharma'scase (2 supra)'} 9. With the^{abovesaid direction'the writ} petition is^disPosedof'"

2

j I Ililiil1ltlil

\Counsel^{di<1 nct dispuie thes -'''bmissions of}

1. l,carneci^StandinE learne<l^{counsel for the petitioner'}

ru* in^{\ r'P'llo'5200of}

1. In terms^{of the order passedby this Ct} alike'^{t: .s writ Petition}

2Ai24,^{dated' 25'04'2024'and for the reasons}

is disposed^{of directing the respbnd'ent authoritiest > scrupulously} follqw^{the guidelines/ instructions inthe RBI)ircular<iated} 12.Oa.2O22,^{and also the jurlgments of Hon'lile Str''rerne} ""Tt-]"

ICICI Baak^{Ltd Vs' PrakashKaur and othersr qlc (CICI Bank Vs'}

dhanti^{Dewi Sharma and others2'}

Pencting^{miscellaneousapplications'} ,-if -^{anl'shallstanC}

closed.^{lrlo costs.}

T,iiih?i,Tt-'6iJf#R G;

/TTRUE^COPY"

SECTION^OFFICER

to''',. ,n. Secretary'^{Ministry of Finance' Union of lndia'NervDelhi} cJ:fi1i9"i1"d35y"'n"''^{Reserve Bank of lndia (FI l)' 6' Sansad Marg'}

, lh"

One^{CC to SRt BONTHU LOKESH PHANINDRAREI) )Y Advocate IOPUCI}

One^{CC to MS B KAVITHA YADAV SC FOR (CENTRIL GOVT)' [OPUC]}

Two^{CD CoPies}

DAN

TKS dt-

'^{clo07)2 SCC 711}

, (2008) 7 SCC 532

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411012025

ORDER

--z:: I l--:l:-
tJiitr :slrL-r..,;,
oo) ($_r
:E
2 tl :8 211/6
(.,=
.]-
* i',/-'
.t- './
: . -.-,.-tr "\ ' -- ai'

WP.No.27206 of 2025

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

9 ,J{ . .,4