Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/12557/2025 of B SRINIVASULU Vs THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA on 11 October 2026
of 2025 1 APHC010240722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12557/2025 Between: 1. B SRINIVASULU, S/O B.SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU, AGED
RC,J
APHC010240722025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 12557/2025
Between:
1. B SRINIVASULU, S/O B.SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 46
YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.1-145/1,VELUR, PITCHATUR
MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
MANAGER (OMBUDSMAN) 6 SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001
2. AXIS BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, O/O
NO.83, K T ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
3. YES BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, O/O D.NO.
13-3-92 /A1, GROUND FLOOR, TILAK ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI
DISTRICT.
4. RBL BANK, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER, O/O THE
RATNAKAR
BANK
LTD,
D
NO.
231/2,
PLOT
NO.
87,
PADMAVATHIPURAM, TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI
DISTRICT.
5. ICICI BANK, REP BY ITS MANAGER, O/O PLOT NO 156, NEW
BALAJI COLONY AIR BYPASS ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI
DISTRICT.
RC,J
6. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, O/O 6- 7-539 B, A K NILAYAM, HAREKRISHNA ROAD SRIPURAM COLONY, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
7. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGER, O/O
D.NO.138 A, GROUND FLOOR, T K STREET, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI
DISTRICT.
8. HDFCBANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, O/OD.NO.19/8/180, 1ST FLOOR, KRISHNA TOWERS, 19TH WARD, AIR BYPASS
ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus,declaring the action of the Respondents No. 2 to 8 in utilizing unlawful recovery methods in violation of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur ((2007) 2 SCC 711) and in violation of guidelines issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and sheer violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondent no.2 to 8 to follow due process of law for any recovery against the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Please to direct the respondent no.2 to 8 not to interfere with the petitioners place of residence and business and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to grant leave by condoning the delay to the Petitioner/Respondent No. 8 in the Writ Petition No.12557 of 2025 for filing the counter affidavit in the in the above writ petition and pass RC,J
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SAI AKASH N
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. KUNUKU RAJA SEKHAR
2.
3. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent nos.3 to 8 in harassing the petitioner and his family members by sending loan recovery agents to the house of the petitioner, by making continuous phone calls and humiliating him in front of neighbours without following the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India vide Memo No.RBI/2022-23/108, dated 12.08.2022.
2. Heard n.Sai Akash, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned counsel for respondent no.6 Sri Kunuku Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.8/ bank.
3. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. V. Prakash Kaur and others1 has categorically held that the practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. The Bank 1 (2007) 2 SCC 711 n RC,J
should resort to procedure recognized by law if the borrower have committed default in payment of the installments instead of taking resort to strong arm tactics. However, as the respondents contend that they never sent agents and they have an intention to follow law for recovery, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending, as such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition.
5. In view of the above, respondent nos.2 & 6 to 8 should resort to procedure recognized by law if the borrower have committed default in payment of the installments instead of taking resort to strong arm tactics.
6. So far as respondent nos. 3 to 5 are concerned, in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd.2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ruled that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a private non-banking financial company (NBFC) or private commercial entities. Therefore, this writ petition filed against respondent nos. 3 to 5 is not maintainable and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedies by approaching appropriate Forum.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, the respondent nos2 & 6 to 8 are not precluded to take steps in accordance with law for recovery of money, if any, payable by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is
2. (2025 INSC 117)
RC,J
at liberty to approach appropriate Forum for getting his grievance redressed against respondent nos. 3 to 5. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 12th October, 2026
BRS