JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent officials, their recovery agents and other men in bringing antisocial elements and transgender people to the petitioner’s house, and doing dharnas and creating ugly scenes before her house situated at Vaikunthapuram, Tirupathi by holding placards and using filthy language and singing obscene songs involving the petitioner’s name, creating a very great agony, humiliation, loss of reputation and depression to the petitioner in the name of alleged recovery of certain amounts, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents not to create such ugly scenes and not to bring illegal pressure on the petitioner in any manner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. V. Dyumani, learned counsel represent Smt. T. Vidya Rani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Bank. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the Proprietor of M/s. Lenin Industries. She obtained a term loan of Rs.30.00 lakhs from the respondents Bank and executed promissory note, hypothecation cum loan agreement hypothecating hydraulics, disks, heaters, cutters, hydraulic power punch etc. The- monthly installment is Rs.63,938/- commencing from January, 2017. As the petitioner sustained loss in the business, she failed to pay the dues as per the agreement. Therefore, the respondents filed O.A. No.3653-of 2017 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, and the petitioner received notices from the Tribunal. Apart from filing the O.A., Bank officials along with some recovery agents, antisocial elements and some transgender people came to the house of the petitioner and creating ugly scenes and doing dharna by holding placards and. raising slogans against the petitioner by using filthy language. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being a Nationalized Bank, the Bank officials cannot resort to such illegal and indecent acts of defaming the petitioner and that the acts of the officials of the 2nd respondent are causing agony and humiliation to the petitioner. It is mainly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even after filing the O.A., before the Tribunal, for recovery of the loan amount, the respondents are doing illegal acts and therefore, he sought for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the rights of the petitioner. 5. It is mainly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even after filing the O.A., before the Tribunal, for recovery of the loan amount, the respondents are doing illegal acts and therefore, he sought for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the rights of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that as per the instructions received from their higher-ups, the Bank officials are conducting dharnas in front of the house of the petitioner for recovery of the loan amount as it became non-performing asset. She further submits that the respondents have not engaged any antisocial elements or transgender people for doing dharna in front of the house of the petitioner, but the Bank officials themselves have participated in dharna as per the instructions received from their higher-ups. 6. The point for consideration is that whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 7. At the outset, except stating in the affidavit that the respondent officials have engaged antisocial elements and transgender people for creating ugly scenes before the house of the petitioner to damage reputation of the petitioner, there is no other material to show the same. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Bank officials themselves have conducted dharna in front of the house of the petitioner only with a view to recover the loan amount from the petitioner as her account became NPA. In fact, the Bank of India is a Nationalized Bank. The Bank is expected to recover the loans by invoking the provisions under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and also the Secuterization Act. Admittedly, the Bank has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad for recovery of an amount of Rs. 34,36,539/-against the petitioner. Having done so, there is no. necessity for the Bank officials to. again approach the petitioner and conduct Dharnas in front of her house. Whatsoever may be the instructions from the higher-ups of the Bank, it is not expected from the Nationalized Banks to go and conduct dharnas before the houses of their customers, when there are specific Forums created for the purpose of recovery of loans and specific enactments are made to that effect. Whatsoever may be the instructions from the higher-ups of the Bank, it is not expected from the Nationalized Banks to go and conduct dharnas before the houses of their customers, when there are specific Forums created for the purpose of recovery of loans and specific enactments are made to that effect. Therefore, the act of the respondents in staging the dharna in front of the house of the petitioner for recovery of the amount does not appear to be a proper legal remedy available to the respondents. 8. It is also made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the acts of the respondents, she can resort to the remedies available to her under the civil and criminal laws. 9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to casts. Consequentially, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.