Telangana High Court
WP/1098/2026 of Mohammed Maqbool Vs Union of India on 9 January 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 1098 OF 2026 Mohammed Maqbool, S/o Mohammed Akbar Late, Age- 57 years, Occ-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 1098 OF 2026
Mohammed Maqbool, S/o Mohammed Akbar Late, Age- 57 years, Occ- Pvt Employee, R/o H.No.2-110, Youth Colony, Old Hafeezpet, [t4iyapur, HYderabad' 5ooo49
...pETrroNER
AND
1. Union of lndia, Represent by it's Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi
2. Reserve Bank of lndia (RBl), Represent by its Chief General Manager, 6-1- 65, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500004.
3. Axis Bank Ltd, Rep by its Nodel Olficer Hyderabad Circle Office, Abhinandan Towers, 6-3-24913, Road No-1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the 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 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 lndia Circular dated 12.08.2022 bearing No. RBll2O22-231
108, DOR.ORG.REC.65/21 .O4.158/2022-23, 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 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 Circular in 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 any acts of intimidation, Between:
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 No. 3 for violating legal norms, and pending disposal of the writ petition, direct the respondent No.3 not to resort to any coercive measures against the petitioner except through lawful means and in strict adherence to the Circular dated
12.O8.2022.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BONTHU LOKESH PHANINDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI S.SUNIL, Sr. SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M.P.KASHYAP
The Court made the following: ORDER
--7
I
\
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Between:
Mohammed Maqbool
... Petitioner
AND
Union of India & two others
, ..Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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:
Sn B. Lokesh Phanindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri S. Sunil, learned Senior Standing Counsel lor Central Government, lor respondcnt Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri M.P.Kashyap, Iearned counscl lor respondent No.3
2. 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.18913 of 2024, dated 22.08.2024 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. In vicq, of the above circulars, this Court dccms it appropriate Lo direct the rcspondents to I I \VRIT PETITION No.1O98 of 2026 Dated: 09.O1.2026
) ensure that the agents engaged by them for recovery of the loan amounts, shall strictly follow the guidelincs 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. Wit'r d isposed of thc abovc dircction, the writ petition is No cost s. "
3. Learned counsel lor the respondents have no objection. Miscellaneous petitions, il any pending, shall stand closed. (200712 scc 711 (2008) 7 SCC 532 SD/. T. SRINIVASA REDD ASSISTANT RE ,TRUE COPY// The Secretary, Union of lndia, lr/inistry of Finance, SECTION OFFICER Delhi l), 6-1 -65, Secretariat The Chief General [\r'lanager, Reserve Bank of lndia B Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500004. The Nodel Officer,'Axis Bank Ltd, Hyderabad Circle Office, Abhinandan Towers, 6-3-24913, Road No-1, Baniara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034. One CC to SRI BONTHU LOKESH PHANINDRA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI S SUNIL, Sr. SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT [OPUC] One CC to SRI M P.KASHAYAP, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies I To
PSK.
4. Accordingly, in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 18913 of 2024, dated 22.O8.2024, and for the reasons alike, this Writ Petition is disposed ol direc ting the respondent authorities and their agents to scrupulously follou, thc guidelines/ instructions issued by the Reserve Bank o[ Inclia in its Circular dated 12.O8.2O22 and also the judgments of Hon'ble Suprcme (lourt in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur'rs case and ICICI Bank v. Sharrti Devi Sharma'2s case, while recovering the loan amounts from the petitioner. No costs. \
HIGH COURT DATED:0910112026
ORDER
WP.No.1098 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS T4 ?q:tR s I i-8 HE
R
t oo c.. ,:., b 'i