Madras High Court
R.Gayatri vs The Regional Manager on 15 October, 2019
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 01.10.2019
DATE OF DECISION : 15.10.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P.(MD) No.16634 of 2019
R.Gayatri ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
Madurai.
2.The Manager,
State Bank of India,
Y.Othakadai Branch,
Madurai.
3.State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by Secretary,
Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
4.Air Carnival Aviation Academy,
represented by Principal
Pollachi Main Road,
Otthakalmandapam,
Coimbatore-641 032.
(R3 and R4 are suo motu impleaded
vide order dated 20.9.2019 made in
W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019) .. Respondents
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to avail
educational loan to the petitioner under Vidhya Educational Loan Scheme in
Loan application ID No.275060 dated 31.05.2018 and consequently direct the
1/24
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019
second respondent to reconsider the educational loan application rejected on
09.04.2019 by reference letter MDU LBO CMCELL 9 GJ 2019 and pass such
other or further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of this case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.Pala Ramasamy
Standing Counsel for RR1 and 2
Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, AGP
for R-3
No appearance for R-4
----
ORDER
Mr.R.Saravanakumar, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'said bank' for the sake of convenience and clarity) and Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of third respondent are before this Court.
2 To be noted, fourth respondent has been duly served and name / address of fourth respondent is shown in the cause list. This court is informed that fourth respondent has not chosen to enter appearance through any counsel. There is no representation for fourth respondent at the hearing, though the name of fourth respondent was called out aloud thrice in the court hall and in the adjoining corridor.
2/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 3 With the consent of aforementioned three counsel, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of.
4 Central theme of instant writ petition is an application by writ petitioner seeking educational loan under Vidhya Lakshmi Educational Loan scheme vide loan application ID 275060 dated 31.07.2018 seeking Rs. 3,30,000/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty thousand only) being total fee for a three years course being a degree course, namely 'B.Sc. Aircraft Maintenance Engineering' (hereinafter 'said course' for brevity) having secured admission for the same in the 'fourth respondent college', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said college' for the sake of convenience and clarity and rejection of said educational loan application vide a communication dated 09.04.2019 from said bank (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity). In this regard, it is necessary to mention that this 09.04.2019 document is in the nature of a communication from said bank. There are two aspects of this matter. First aspect is, drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned order, it is submitted without any disputation or disagreement by learned counsel for writ petitioner as well as learned counsel for said bank (by adverting to writ affidavit and counter affidavit) that though the impugned order is addressed to The Lead District Manager, Canara Bank, St. Mary Campus, East Veli Street, Madurai, writ petitioner's educational loan application has been made to said Bank. The second aspect is, though this is in the nature of communication, as this is effectively a communication vide which writ petitioner's educational loan 3/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 application has been rejected and as this is the epicenter of this writ petition, the same is being referred to as 'impugned order' in preference to 'impugned communication'. To be noted, prayer in the writ petition seeks only a mandamus regarding educational loan, but, at the hearing a request was made to treat this as a writ petition assailing the impugned order, as the writ petition has been filed after rejection of educational loan vide impugned order. In the normal circumstances, this court would have taken a different view, but considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case, which shall be alluded to infra in paragraphs to follow, this court treats this writ petition as one assailing the impugned order also inter-alia by treating the same as prayer under residuary limb of the prayer which seeks 'such other or further orders deemed fit and proper' to be passed by this Court. Further, to be noted, in the prayer, the date of loan application has been wrongly mentioned as 31.05.2018, whereas the correct date of loan application is 31.07.2018 as mentioned above.
5 A brief mention about the background of writ petitioner student is that she belongs to a community which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste (community certificate dated 29.12.2006 has been enclosed in the typed set of papers); that her father one K.Ravi is working in Madurai Corporation and has been diagonised of brain tumor; that writ petitioner student has passed XII standard examination being State Board of School Examinations, Tamil Nadu conducted by Department of Government Examinations, Chennai in March 2017; that writ petitioner has secured 977 out of 1200 which is 81.4% 4/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 aggregate. Though not articulated in the affidavit and though it has been mentioned in the affidavit that writ petitioner's father is working in the Madurai Corporation, at the hearing on instructions, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that writ petitioner's father is working as a sanitary worker in Madurai Corporation.
6 Aforesaid educational loan application of writ petitioner seeking Rs.3.3 lakhs educational loan for said course in said college for which she secured admission in the academic year 2017-18 was rejected by said bank vide impugned order saying that the CIBIL score of writ petitioner's father and mother are 545 and 300 (respectively). In other words, writ petitioner's educational loan application was rejected on the ground that writ petitioner's father is a defaulter qua said bank. To be noted, this court is informed that 'CIBIL' stands for 'Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited'.
7 What is of significance is writ petitioner has completed First year of said course, i.e., three years course and has now been stopped by fourth respondent, i.e., said college from attending the second year (2018-19) solely for not paying fees. In this regard, jurisdictional District Collector, i.e., District Collector, Coimbatore has issued a letter dated 07.12.2018 bearing reference No.4253/2018/K10, which reads as follows :
'I am referring Ms.Kayathri D/o.Ravi, Madurai who was studied second year B.Sc., Aircraft Maintenance Engineering in your College and requesting readmission as she has been dismissed for not paying the education fees. Since her mother has stated that 5/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 she has applied for Bank Loan which is under process, I request that her case may be considered favourably so as to enable her to continue her studies.'
8 As the hearing of the case progressed, this court noticed that a letter dated 23.10.2018 bearing Na.Ka.No.4253/2018/Ka10 from the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Coimbatore has been sent to fourth respondent and the same read as follows :
6/24
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019
9 Therefore, this court made proceedings dated 20.9.2019 vide which respondents 3 and 4 were suo motu impleaded. Proceedings of this court dated 20.9.2019 reads as follows :
'Perusal of the case file reveals that there is a communication dated 23.10.2018, bearing reference Na.Ka.No. 4253/2018/Ka10 from the District Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Coimbatore to Principal, Air Carnival Aviation Academy, which is the Institution where writ petitioner is pursuing her education viz., B.Sc., (Air Craft Maintenance Engineering) (now interrupted). Perusal of this communication reveals that the Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare Department of the Government of 7/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 Tamil Nadu has made a provision for scholarship (cjtpj;bjhif) and no efforts have been made by the said College to create User ID and Password Register in the Website and get this benefit for its students. This communication also makes a reference to G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 11.09.2012. The Community Certificate placed as part of the typed set of papers reveals that writ petitioner is entitled to get this scholarship (cjtpj;bjhif) . As it is submitted that writ petitioner's education has been interrupted owing to education loan rejection by State Bank of India citing writ petitioner's parents' credit rating and difficulty in payment of fee. In the light of the communication alluded to herein, this Court deems it appropriate to suo motu implead the following two entities as respondents 3 and 4 in this Writ Petition:
“(a)State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary, Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
(b)Air Carnival Aviation Academy, represented by Principal, Pollachi Main Road, Otthakalmandapam, Coimbatore-641 032.”
2.The aforesaid two entities will stand impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 in this Writ Petition.
3.Mr.A.Ayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.
3. With regard to respondent No.4, notice returnable by 26.09.2019. Writ Petitioner's counsel is permitted to take out private notice to respondent No.4.
4.Registry is directed to carry out necessary and consequential amendments in the case file before the next listing.
5.List in the motion list on 26.09.2019.' 8/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 10 In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for writ petitioner assailed the impugned order of said bank on grounds which can be broadly summarised as follows :
(a)Writ petitioner's education loan application cannot be rejected for no fault of her by citing her parents' CIBIL scores and saying that her father is a defaulter;
(b)According to 'Reserve Bank of India' ('RBI' for brevity) notification bearing reference RPCD.PLNFS.BC.No. 83/06/06.12.05/2000-01, no application for educational loan should be rejected without concurrence of next higher authority, but this has not been done qua impugned order;
(c)Adverting to the same RBI Circular, it was submitted that the educational loan applications have to be disposed of within a period of 15 days to one month, whereas in the instant case, said bank has taken more than eight months. To be noted, loan application is dated 31.7.2018 and the impugned order was made on 09.04.2019.
11 In response to the above contentions, submissions made by learned counsel for said bank can be broadly summarised as follows : 9/24
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019
(a)Notwithstanding the averments in the counter affidavit, said bank is now willing to reconsider the educational loan application of writ petitioner;
(b)Writ petitioner can choose some other relative or family member as co-borrower / co-applicant, who is not a defaulter.
12 With regard to State counsel for third respondent, his submissions are as follows :
(a)District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Coimbatore has written to said College about availability of scheme for paying fees by Government directly to the college concerned for students falling under Scheduled Caste category vide G.O.No.92 dated 11.9.2012. Said college has not even responded to the same;
(b)All that the said college need to have done is, respond to 23.10.2018 communication, get a user id / password, get the fee payment assistance for students falling under Scheduled Caste category and pass it on to the student concerned (in this case, writ petitioner).
13 Relevant paragraph in G.O.No.92 dated 11.09.2012 is paragraph 17 and the same reads as follows :
10/24
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019
14 As already alluded to supra, fourth respondent, i.e., said college has been duly served, but has not chosen to enter appearance through counsel and has not chosen to come before this Court inspite of its name / address being shown in the cause list and being called out aloud thrice in court hall and adjoining corridor.
15 In this regard, blanket averments made in the counter affidavit of respondent bank that paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are denied as false is extremely unfortunate. To be noted, paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition read as follows :
“2.I humbly submits that I have passed my Higher Secondary Education (+2) at Annamalayar Higher Secondary School situated in Madurai with Nine Hundred and seventy seven marks, in the year of 2017.11/24
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019
3.I humbly submit that since I have been interested in civil aviation I have got admission in the management quota for the year of 2017 in AIR CARNIVAL AVIATION ACADEMY in the college situated in Pollachi main road at Coimbatore.
4.I humbly submit that I have joined at the college in the degree of B.Sc., (Air Craft maintenance Engineering) in the academic year of 2017 and I further submit that since I belonged to Adidravidar Community, I believed that I have a fair chance to get scholarship for education.”
16 Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit reads as follows :
“4.I respectfully submit that with respect to averment made in Para.2,3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition is denied as false and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.”
17 In the light of the undisputed communication from the jurisdictional District Collector, such a blanket denial by said Bank in the considered view of this court is not only untenable, but unfortunate.
18 As learned counsel for said Bank has submitted that (notwithstanding the averments contained in the counter affidavit) said Bank is willing to reconsider the educational loan application of writ petitioner afresh, if made with a different co-borrower / co-applicant, it is not necessary to advert to other contentions in the counter affidavit of said Bank. In other 12/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 words, it is the categoric submission of learned counsel for said Bank that the sole / lone stated position of said bank in the instant case is that it is willing to reconsider the educational loan application of writ petitioner. As it is the sole / lone stated position of said bank and as it is made clear that it is notwithstanding the averments made in the counter affidavit, this court deems it appropriate to eschew and ignore the aforementioned denials in the counter affidavit. However, there is a reference to some denials in the counter affidavit elsewhere in this order and that is only to encapsulate and capture the pleadings in instant case as comprehensively as possible.
19 It was pointed out that Vidya Lakshmi Portal itself was created by Government of India for students seeking education loan with the lofty objective of ensuring that young people in India are both educated and employable for the jobs of 21st century. It was also pointed out that Vidhya Lakshmi portal mentions about poor and middle class students being able to pursue higher education of their choice without constraint of funds inter-alia by monitoring scholarships as well as education loan schemes through Pradhan Mantri Vidya Lakshmi Karyakram. Therefore, respondent Bank certainly has a public duty.
20 Impugned order of respondent Bank reads as follows : 13/24
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019
21 It is now too well settled that a impugned order cannot be improved by way of a counter affidavit or arguments at the hearing. Not having mentioned anything about reapplying with another co-borrower, the contention of said bank now that it would reconsider the educational loan application if made with another co-borrower / co-applicant is no argument. As alluded to supra, the fact that the student has secured admission in said college and has been discontinued for non payment of fee in the second year 14/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 are all beyond pale of any doubt in the light of undisputed letter from the jurisdictional District Collector dated 07.12.2018, which is as follows :
22 With regard to said college, it has not only not responded to the aforementioned communication of the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, but has not even responded to the notice from this Court. This is even more unfortunate.
15/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 23 There is absolutely no answer from said bank for the argument regarding concurrence of the next higher authority and 15 days to one month time frame for disposal of loan application made by writ petitioner as prescribed in the RBI notification. The impugned order therefore is clearly in breach of RBI notification.
24 Most importantly, under similar circumstances, i.e., educational loan application of student being rejected citing student's father being a defaulter and his CIBIL status being written off, a Hon'ble Single Judge of this court vide order dated 08.04.2019 in W.P.No.8330 of 2019 had relied on an other earlier order of this court and had granted relief to the student writ petitioner therein. Paragraph 5 of said order is relevant and the same reads as follows :
“5. The very same issue was already concerned in very many cases, wherein the same contention of the bank was rejected, out of which a recent decision was made in W.P.(MD) No.16836 of 2018 dated 3 27.08.2018. The learned Single Judge of this Court, in the above case, after extensively considering identical objection, has rejected the case of the Bank and directed them to extend the education loan to the petitioner therein. At paragraph No.4, the learned Judge extracted an order passed in W.P.No. 6286 of 2011 dated 18.08.2011 and has observed at paragraph No.11 and 14 as follows:-
11. As rightly held by the learned Judge of this Court in the order dated 12.04.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 5144 of 2018, default by the parents in discharging of some other loan availed by them cannot be a valid basis for denial of sanction of educational loan for their children. Moreover, the other reasons cited by the 16/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 second respondent Bank that the employability and the accreditation of the College, in which the petitioner's daughter is admitted, are concerned, the same also cannot be a valid basis for denial of sanction of educational loan, since the College was founded only during 2015 and the first batch of graduates is yet to emerge.
In any event, admittedly, the College, in which the petitioner's daughter is admitted and pursuing her higher education, is affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, which is a State University and once the College is affiliated to a recognized University, the question with regard to accreditation of the individual College would not arise at least for the purpose of grant of educational loan. In any event, it is needless to mention that Degrees would be ultimately awarded by the University and not by the College. Therefore, the issue of accreditation, which is held against the petitioner, cannot be countenanced either under law or on facts. Therefore, the same has to be rejected outright.
14. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed and there shall be a direction to the second respondent Bank to consider the claim of the petitioner and sanction educational loan, as sought by him, within the prescribed norms, without holding the reasons as set forth in the counter affidavit against the petitioner. This Court also rejects the contention of the second respondent-Bank that there was no challenge to the decision of the Bank in rejecting the petitioner's claim, since such an objection is only a technical objection and it does not merit serious consideration by this Court. The second respondent Bank is directed to sanction educational loan, as admissible, to the petitioner and 17/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 pass appropriate orders in this regard, within a period of two weeks from the date of reciept of a copy of this order. No costs.“ To be noted, vide paragraph 6, the writ petition was allowed.
25 To be noted, there is no disputation or disagreement before this court that writ petitioner's loan application was rejected stating that CIBIL score of writ petitioner's father and mother are of very high risk and reason / ground set out in the impugned order alone is the impediment in granting education loan to the writ petitioner. In other words, other than the ground / reason set out in the impugned order, there is no other obstacle for having the loan (sought for) approved, sanctioned and disbursed. To put it differently, absent the aforesaid ground / reason, writ petitioner's educational loan application will stand processed, approved, sanctioned and disbursed. In this context, this court deems it appropriate to mention that this court is inclined to lean towards this view notwithstanding the language in which impugned order is couched. Impugned order uses the expression '...... could not be processed ......'. It is more than obvious and clear as day light that said bank could not have come to the conclusion that writ petitioner's parents' CIBIL scores are 545 and 300 which according to said Bank is of very high risk, without processing writ petitioner's application. To put it differently, this court accepts the position that writ petitioner's educational loan application has been processed and rejected on the sole ground which turns on CIBIL scores of 18/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 writ petitioner's parents. This means that the impugned order is not happily worded as far as it uses the expression '...... could not be processed ......' is concerned.
26 With regard to funds that are available with the State and the same lying unutilized owing to lack of response from institutions like the fourth respondent college, the same has been noticed by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this court. A Division Bench of this court vide order dated 26.10.2018 made in W.P.No.1543 of 2018 referred to Government schemes and held that huge sums of funds are lying unutilized. Relevant paragraph in this order is paragraph 66, which reads as follows :
“66. On receipt of the Central Share of post-matric scholarship [s], the Principal Secretary to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu, AdiDravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai and the Director, AdiDravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai, respondents 3 and 4 herein, are directed to disburse the sum of Rs. 162 Crores, of Scholarship to be paid to Scheduled Caste students for the academic year 2017-18, pursuing Arts/Science/Professional courses, within one month thereafter.“
27 Learned State Counsel, on instructions submitted that if fourth respondent college responds to 23.10.2018 communication, benefits vide G.O.No.92 dated 11.9.2012 qua writ petitioner will be disbursed forthwith.
28 In the considered view of this Court, the sole reason given in the impugned order is clearly not sustainable as it is against first principles of civil 19/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 law and contrary to canons of equity. It is a matter of first principle in civil law that a person inherits assets from predecessors / parents and passing on of liability, if at all, is limited to the extent of the estate inherited. In this view of the matter, refusing to process writ petitioner's educational loan application on the sole ground that her parents' CIBIL score is poor is clearly opposed to first principles of civil law besides being opposed to well established canons of equity. After all, it is both a matter of rule of law and a matter of civility / social ethics that a child should not be penalised for alleged misdeeds of his / her parents.
29 In the light of the aforesaid dispositive reasoning, this Court is left with the considered view that impugned order is liable to be set aside. This Court while setting aside the impugned order has considered the stated position of said Bank that writ petitioner's parents' CIBIL score is the only impediment in approving, granting and disbursing educational loan sought for. In other words, what unfurled from the trajectory of the hearing is that, if the sole reason given in the impugned order is nullified, it will result in loan being approved, granted and disbursed to writ petitioner. Therefore, in the light of this aspect of the matter unfurling in the hearing, this Court is inclined to give a positive direction to disburse the educational loan (in the operative portion infra) rather than restricting it to a direction to process the application.
30 One other aspect of the matter which unfurled in the hearing and which has also been alluded to supra is the stated position of learned 20/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 State counsel. Learned State counsel has made it clear that if fourth respondent institution, i.e., said college responds to the letter dated 23.10.2018 from District Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Coimbatore, disbursement of financial help is there for the asking. It therefore follows as a sequittur that fourth respondent will not be put to any disadvantage by a positive direction being given to permit (forthwith) the writ petitioner to continue her education from where it was stopped.
31 Considering the entitlement of writ petitioner in the instant case for State aid, while disbursing loan, the quantum of aid provided by State can certainly be taken into account and construed as a determinant qua quantum of educational loan.
32 In the light of the discussion thus far, the following order is passed:
(a)Impugned order dated 09.04.2019 bearing reference MDU LBO CMCELL 9 GJ 2019 being a communication from second respondent is set aside.;
(b)Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to sanction and disburse the educational loan to writ petitioner qua writ petitioner's loan application ID 275060 dated 31.07.2018 under Vidya Lakshmi Educational Loan scheme, less quantum of aid provided by third 21/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 respondent, as expeditiously as possible and in any event within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
(c)Fourth respondent is directed to respond to the letter of District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare officer, Coimbatore, dated 23.10.2018 and avail the facility vide G.O.No.92 dated 11.9.2012 and pass on the benefit to writ petitioner forthwith.
(d)Fourth respondent is directed to readmit the writ petitioner in B.Sc (Air Craft Maintenance Engineering) course forthwith;
(e)The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
33 Before parting with this case, this Court deems it appropriate to mention two aspects of this matter. One aspect is, it is made clear that this order has been made taking into account the severely disadvantaged circumstances of the writ petitioner (alluded to supra elsewhere in this order) and peculiar factual matrix and therefore, this order shall not serve as a precedent for all and every case of rejection of educational loan application. Second aspect is, a more pragmatic approach is called for from said bank by striking a fine and delicate balance between 'care in handling public money' and 'a public duty', while scrutinizing educational loan applications so that the 22/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 sublime philosophy and salutary principles underlining the goals set out in aforementioned Vidya Lakshmi portal / scheme of Government of India becomes a realizable ideology and does not become a Utopian myth.
15.10.2019 vvk Index:Yes Speaking order To
1.The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Madurai.
2.The Manager, State Bank of India, Y.Othakadai Branch, Madurai.
3.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
23/24 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.16634 of 2019 M.SUNDAR, J.
vvk order in W.P.(MD) No.16634 of 2019 15.10.2019 24/24 http://www.judis.nic.in