APHC010147782026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION NO: 8104/2026 Between: 1. ADDANKI SATHYA NARAYANA, SON OF SERVESWARA RAO, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 1-41-2, MAIN ROAD, TADIKALAPUDI KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR, AMAR BUILDING, SIR P.M. ROAD, MUMBAI- 400 001. 2. M/S SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, O/O. SRI TOWERS, PLOT NO. 14A, SOUTH PHASE, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI, STATE OF TAMIL NADU- 600032. ...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 more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declare the action of the Respondents No. 2 in harassing the petitioner and his family members by sending loan recovery agents to house of the petitioner, harassing physically and mentally by making continuous phone calls and humiliating him in front of neighbors without following the guidelines issued by the 1st respondent/ Reserve Bank of India vide memo. No. RBI/2022-23/108 dated 12.08.2022 which is illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondent No. 2 to follow the guidelines issued by 2 the 1st respondent/ Reserve Bank of India vide memo. No. RBI/2022-23/108 dated 12.08.2022 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 pleased direct the respondent No. 2 not to harass ( physically and mentally) the petitioner by sending the recovery agents to house and not to make any phone calls without following the proceedure, pending disposal of main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SYAM KUMAR VEMULAMADA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION NO.8104 of 2026 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. O. Udaya Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record. 2. The admitted facts are not in dispute. The petitioner availed loan from the 2nd respondent of Rs.60,00,000/- by pledging the title documents of his residential property situated at D.No.1-14-2, covering an area of 339 sq. yards with a Ground + 2 floor structure in Tadikelapudi Village, Eluru District. 3. As per the terms and conditions of the loan account it consists of 84 EMIs at Rs.1,52,864/- per month. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, petitioner is consistently paying all instalments without any default till date. But the grievance of the petitioner is the 2nd respondent-Bank sending his loan recovery agents to the house of the petitioner and they are physically and mentally harassing the petitioner and humiliating him before the neighbours. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner such actions are in direct contravention of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 12.08.2022. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is paying loan instalments regularly and there is no default in any payment. However, learned Standing Counsel would submit that the petitioner availed the 4 loan by producing the fake property documents. As such, respondent No.2 is entitled to take an appropriate action against the petitioner by following due process of law to protect the interest of the 2nd respondent-Financial Institution. 5. Having heard the submissions of the case, it appears that there is no default on the part of the petitioner in paying the instalments for the loan availed from the respondent No.2, but the 2nd respondent’s grievance is that the property documents produced by the petitioner at the time of availing the loan are fake. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the statements made by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent that they will proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law for producing fake documents; in our view, this Writ Petition can be disposed of, at the stage of admission with the consent of both sides to meet the interest of justice. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, placing the statements of learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that they will not proceed against the petitioner without following due process of law on record. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Date: 06.04.2026 SA 5 169 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION NO.8104 of 2026 Dt.06.04.2026 SA 6