2026:JHHC:9511 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5738 of 2023 ----- 1.Joydeep Ghosh, S/o Late Sisir Kumar Ghosh, R/o Near Loco Tank, Ajanta Para, P.O., P.S. and District Dhanbad 2.Namita Ghosh, W/o Late Sisir Kumar Ghosh, R/o Near Loco Tank, Ajanta Para, P.O., P.S. and District Dhanbad .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.LIC Housing Finance Limited through its Managing Director having its office at Bombay Life Building, 2nd Floor, 45/47, P.O. and P.s. Veer Nariman Road, District Mumbai, State Maharashtra 2.LIC Housing Finance Limited through its Area Manger, having it Area Office at – Ashoka Tower 1st Floor, Karbala Road, PO and PS Bank More, District Dhanbad ------ Respondent(s) CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate …...... 04/ 06.04.2026: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions restraining the respondents from publishing the photographs of the petitioners in any newspaper or public domain pursuant to the notice dated 11.09.2023. 3. The petitioners had taken three loans of Rs.10 lakh each from the respondents in the years 2013, 2014, and 2015, each with a tenure of 10 years. For these loans, they mortgaged their residential house located in Dhanbad. Due to serious financial difficulties, the petitioners were unable to pay their EMIs from June 2023 to September 2023. However, they already informed the respondents (bank/authority) about their situation and requested some time to repay. Despite this, on 11.09.2023, the respondents suddenly came to their house and pasted a notice declaring their loan accounts as Non-Performing Assets (NPA). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the act of pasting the notice on their house was done without consent and was 2026:JHHC:9511 2 improper. The notice contained threats to defame them if they did not repay the dues, which is illegal. He further submits that the proposed action of the respondents to publish the photographs of the petitioners in newspapers, as mentioned in the notice dated 11.09.2023, is illegal, arbitrary, and without any authority of law. He challenges only that part of the notice by which their photographs are proposed to be published. 5. The learned counsel for respondents submits that the classification of an account as NPA is action based on financial criteria and does not require prior notice or opportunity of hearing. He further submits that the affixation of notice at the residential premises of the petitioners was done in accordance with procedures. He also submits that the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court without clean hands and they have failed to adhere to the repayment schedule. Mere financial difficulty cannot absolve them from their obligations. 6. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the act proposed by the respondents to publish photograph of the petitioners would amount to unwarranted invasion of the petitioners’ right to privacy and dignity, and would cause irreparable harm to their reputation in society. The said action is not a recognized mode of recovery under law and is merely coercive in nature. The proposed action of publishing the photographs of the petitioners in newspapers is not supported by any provision under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 or the Rules framed thereunder and is arbitrary and excessive in nature and a coercive method not recognized by law. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Metsil Exports Private Limited and Another versus Punjab National Bank and Another reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 6173 has held that publication in newspapers is not required if proper service has already been effected. It can be resorted to only when the borrower is evading service and all other modes have failed. Such action must be based on a recorded and reasonable satisfaction, which is a necessary condition. 2026:JHHC:9511 3 7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and observation made herein above, I find that publication of photographs should not be done as a routine practice and can only be justified in exceptional cases involving willful defaulters. Routine publication to pressure borrowers is improper, violates their right to dignity, and may adversely affect genuine borrowers and the economy. The case in hand is not an exceptional case to publish the photograph. Thus, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. Part of Annexure-1, which is related to publication of photograph of the defaulters, is set aside. The respondents are prohibited from publishing the photograph of the defaulters, but they can take all necessary legal actions in terms of law to recover the amount. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 06th April, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 09/04/2026