1 APHC010237442026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12677/2026 Between: Dreams Restaurant And Dhaba, ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PELLETI RAJESH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2. O UDAYA KUMAR The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in appointing agents and sending them to the residence and work place of the petitioner to recover the alleged loan/credit/security etc., dues pending by him, instead of invoking provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri Pelleti Rajesh Kumar, learned central government counsel. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the 3rd respondent is sending agents to the petitioner’s residence and work place and threatening him with dire consequences and interfering with the petitioner’s day to day affairs on the ground of recovery of loan amount, contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd Vs Prakash Kaur & others1 and prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. To the said submission, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that, no agents were sent by them as alleged by the petitioner and further submitted that the 3rd respondent would follow the due procedure contemplated under law. 5. In ICICI Bank Ltd (referred supra), the Apex court has observed thus: “The practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. 6. In ICICI Bank Vs Shanti Devi Sharma 2 and others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Banks/Financial institutions to strictly follow guidelines issued by the RBI. In view of the judgments referred supra and as the 3rd respondent has submitted that they would follow the procedure contemplated under law, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: 1 (2007) 2 SCC 711 2 2008 (7) SCC 532 3 “The respondents are directed not to indulge in any activities by sending agents or goons to the petitioner’s residence and work place, for recovery of money. It is needless to observe that, the respondents have to strictly follow the procedure contemplated under law for recovery of the money, if any.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS