1 APHC010137702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION NO: 7799/2026 Between: 1. K CHANDRAMMA, W/O K. ANAND, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H. NO. 3/196, SC COLONY, HALIGERA VILLAGE ASPARI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT,518347. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, 4TH FLOOR, AMAR BUILDING SIR P.M. ROAD MUMBAI REP. BY ITS GOVERNOR, 400 001 2. THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, STALIN CENTRAL, D. NO 27-37-158, MG ROAD, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA,520010. 3. THE M/S FIVE STAR BUSINESS FINANCE LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE NEW NUMBER 27, OLD NO. 4, TAYLORS ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, 600010. 4. THE M/S FIVE STAR BUSINESS FINANCE LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE D. NO. 19-394,1ST FLOOR, OPPOSITE BHEEMAS HOTEL, FAREED SAHEB MOHALLADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, 518301. ...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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 4th respondent, sending recovery agents 2 to the residence of the petitioner as well as making phone calls to the petitioner at odd hours is illegal arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 21 of constitution of India consequently direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to follow the procedure contemplated by law to recover any loans that may be due to the respondents 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 to direct and 4th respondents to stop sending recovery agents to the petitioner residence as well as making calls at odd hours and pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANTAPAMPALLE RAMPRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MANTAPAMPALLE RAMPRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION NO.7799 OF 2026 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “…to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the 4th respondent in sending recovery agents to the residence of the petitioner as well as making phone calls to the petitioner at odd hours is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to follow the procedure contemplated by law to recover any loans that may be due to the respondents and pass such other order or orders…” 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are entitled to recover loan amount in terms of the loan agreements by following the procedure established under law and they are not having any right to recover the loan amount by using force or other methods which are unknown to Law. 4. The issues raised in this Writ Petition are no longer res integra as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Prakash Kaur and others1, while dealing with the similar issues where the banks engaged the 1 (2007) 2 SCC 711 4 services of recovery/collection agents to recover the loans, observed as follows: “16. Before we part with this matter, we wish to make it clear that we do not appreciate the procedure adopted by the Bank in removing the vehicle from the possession of the writ petitioner. The practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. The Bank should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicles in cases where the borrower may have committed default in payment of the instalments instead of taking resort to strong-arm tactics.” 5. Aggressive recovery tactics adopted by the agents of Banks/Financial Institutions lead to the landmark judgment in ICICI Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma and others2, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Banks/Financial Institutions to strictly follow the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 6. In the above referred judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court condemned the procedure adopted by the Banks/Financial Institutions in employing recovery agents who are acting as middlemen for securing possession of vehicles/secured assets in cases where the borrower commits default. It was observed that Banks/Financial Institutions, instead of taking recourse to follow the procedure recognized by law for securing the possession of vehicles/secured assets in cases where the borrower commits default in repayment of loan/ loan account is declared as NPA, are resorting to strong-arm tactics. The Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated the guidelines 2 (2008) 7 SCC 532 5 issued by the Reserve Bank of India time and again on the fair conduct by lenders, with reference to usage of services of recovery agents. It also stated that the banks should be reminded of the rule of law and strict action must be taken by the RBI in case of breach of such guidelines. 7. It is apt and appropriate to extract latest guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 12.08.2022 with regard to outsourcing of Financial Services – Responsibilities of regulated entities employing Recovery Agents, which reads as follows: “RBI/2022-23/108 DOR.ORG.REC.65/21.04.158/2022-23 August 12, 2022 Madam/ Sir, Outsourcing of Financial Services - Responsibilities of regulated entities employing Recovery Agents The Reserve Bank of India has from time to time advised regulated entities (REs) that the ultimate responsibility for their outsourced activities vests with them and they are, therefore, responsible for the actions of their service providers including Recovery Agents (hereafter referred to as „agents‟). 2. It has been observed that the agents employed by REs have been deviating from the extant instructions governing the outsourcing of financial services. In view of concerns arising from the activities of these agents, it is advised that the REs shall strictly ensure that they or their agents do not resort to intimidation or harassment of any kind, either verbal or physical, against any person in their debt collection efforts, including acts intended to humiliate publicly or intrude upon the privacy of the debtors' family members, referees and friends, sending inappropriate messages either on mobile or through social media, making threatening and/or anonymous calls, persistently 6 calling the borrower and/or calling the borrower before 8:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m. for recovery of overdue loans, making false and misleading representations, etc. 3. The instructions contained in para 2 above shall supplement and be read in conjunction with the existing guidelines/directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India, as amended from time to time, including those tabulated in Annex. 4. Any violation in this regard by REs will be viewed seriously. Applicability 5. This circular shall apply to the following REs: (a) All Commercial Banks (including Local Area Banks, Regional Rural Banks, and Small Finance Banks) excluding Payments Banks; (b) All All-India Financial Institutions (viz. Exim Bank, NABARD, NHB, SIDBI, and NaBFID); (c) All Non-Banking Financial Companies including Housing Finance Companies; (d) All Primary (Urban) Co-operative Banks, State Co-operative Banks, and District Central Co- operative Banks; and (e) All Asset Reconstruction Companies. 6. This circular shall not apply to microfinance loans covered under „Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Regulatory Framework for Microfinance Loans) Directions, 2022‟, dated March 14, 2022. Yours faithfully, (Sunil T. S. Nair) Chief General Manager” 7 8. For the aforesaid reasons and as the procedure adopted by the respondents for recovery of loan amount from 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 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. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, 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 adhere to the guidelines and instructions issued by the 1st respondent and as hold by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra. 10. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this case, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Date:23.03.2026 TM 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION NO.7799 of 2026 Date:23.03.2026 TM