Madras High Court
N.Ayyamperumal vs Union Of India on 13 July, 2017
Author: K.Kalyanasundaram
Bench: K.Kalyanasundaram
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.07.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
W.P.(MD)No.19412 of 2016
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.13988 of 2016
N.Ayyamperumal ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Represented by Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi.
2.The Reserve Bank of India,
Ombudsman,
Chennai.
3.The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Travancore,
Kalakad Branch,
Tirunelveli. ...Respondents
PRAYER: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to provide
the educational loan to the petitioner's son, based on the petitioner's
representation, dated 26.06.2016 and 21.07.2016 to continue his studies
without surety within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
!For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramu
^For R 1 : Mr.S.Jeyasingh
For R2 : Mr.R.Murugappan
For R3 : Mr.K.R.Laxman
:ORDER
This writ petition is field for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the third respondent to provide the educational loan to the petitioner's son, based on the petitioner's representation, dated 26.06.2016 and 21.07.2016 to continue his studies without surety within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
2. Heard Mr.M.Ramu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Jeyasingh, learned counsel for the first respondent, Mr.R.Murugappan, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr.K.R.Laxman, learned counsel for the third respondent. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had produced the proof for his residential address and also produced no objection certificate obtained from the other Banks to the third respondent and he satisfied all the norms.
4. The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the application of the petitioner was not considered for the reasons that the petitioner did not produced the residential proof and the CIBIL report of the petitioner's father was not good. Further, when the petitioner visited the Bank, he quarrelled with the Branch Manager. The learned counsel would further submit that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has furnished the proof of residential address and the third respondent is ready to consider the application of the petitioner as per norms.
5. In view of the above submission, without going to the merits of the case, this Court directs the third respondent to consider the application of the petitioner and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. .