Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/24108/2026 of MULLA KHADAR HUSSAIN Vs UNION OF INDIA on 1 November 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 24108/2026 Between: Mulla Khadar Hussain ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others
APHC010442922026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 24108/2026
Between:
Mulla Khadar Hussain
...PETITIONER
AND
Union Of India and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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.
1. G M SWAMULU Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P PADMAVATHI (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)
2. KUNUKU RAJA SEKHAR The Court has made the following ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent nos.3 to 6 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 neighbors without following the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India vide Memo No.RBI/2022-23/108, dated 12.08.2022.
2. Heard Sri GM.Swamulu, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Kunuku Rajasekhar, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 and Smt P.Padmavathi, learned central government counsel representing R1.
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. Vs. Prakash Kaur and others1 has categorically held that the practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. In view of the above, respondent banks 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. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, the respondent banks are not precluded to take steps in accordance with law for recovery of money, if any, payable by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS