Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Arunagirisamy vs The Branch Manager on 10 June, 2014

Author: R.Subbiah

Bench: R.Subbiah

       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 10.06.2014

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

W.P.(MD)No.104 of 2014


Arunagirisamy						... Petitioner

						Vs.

1.The Branch Manager,
  Indian Overseas Bank,
  Pampukkovil Santhai Branch,
  Sankarankovil Taluk,
  Tirunelveli District.

2.The Regional Manager,
  Indian Overseas Bank,
  East Car Street,
  Tirunelveli.

3.The District Collector,
  Tirunelveli District,
  Tirunelveli.				     ... Respondents

	Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to
provide the application and sanction the educational loan to the daughter of
the petitioner Ms.A.Nirmaladevi to continue her Diploma in Optometry
Technology.
	
!For Petitioner	: Mr.A.John Vincent
		
For Respondents	: Mr.M.Senthil Kumar
		1 & 2

 For 3rd respondent : Mr.S.Satheesh Kumar,
				Addl. Govt. Pleader

:ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to provide the application and sanction the educational loan to the daughter of the petitioner Ms.A.Nirmaladevi to continue her Diploma in Optometry Technology.

2.The petitioner's daughter viz., Ms.Nirmaladevi is studying 2nd year Diploma Course in Optometry Technology at M.N. College of Optometry. The said College is affiliated one to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, Guindy. The said course requires Rs.1,65,200/- by way of term fee, examination fee, library and laboratory fee, etc. The petitioner has approached the first respondent Bank to get education loan, but the first respondent bank has refused to issue application form. The petitioner has also sent a representation, dated 16.11.2013, to the second respondent. Even then, they did not consider the same. Hence, he has come forward with this writ petition.

3.Today when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the first respondent Bank has submitted that the first respondent Bank is ready to consider the application of the petitioner, if the petitioner submits the same, along with relevant documents.

4.In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel for the first respondent Bank, the first respondent is directed to submit an education loan application to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the application, along with relevant documents from the petitioner, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as per the Indian Bank Association guidelines forthwith.

5.This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.