Madras High Court
Sivasamy vs The Branch Manager on 21 January, 2010
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.01.2010 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.20542/2009 Sivasamy ... Petitioner -vs- The Branch Manager, Canara Bank Alathur Village, Avinasi Taluk, Thiruppur District. ... Respondent Prayer : The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent to consider the application given by the petitioner before the respondent herein for availing educational loan to Kovendiran, who is the son of the petitioner studying 1st year B.E. (Electrical and Electronics Engineering) at SNS College of Engineering, Sathy Main Road, Kurumbapalayam, Coimbatore and grant the education loan within an appropriate time. For Petitioner :Mr.A.V.Raja Mr.C.Balamurugan For Respondent :M/s.V.Adhivarahan G.Santhi Meenakshi ORDER
By consent the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. The prayer in the above writ petition is for issuing a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent bank to consider the application given by the petitioner for availing educational loan for the petitioner's son to enable him to pursue his study in the B.E. (Electrical and Electronics Engineering) course at SNS college of engineering, Sathy Main Road, Kurumbapalayam, Coimbatore and grant education loan within an appropriate time.
2. According to the petitioner, his son Kovedriraraj after completing his +2 course was selected in the counseling conducted by the Anna University and allotted a sheat in B.E. (Electrical and Electronics Engineering) in SNS College of Engineering, Coimbatore. According to the petitioner, he applied for an educational loan to the respondent bank on 23.09.2009, by way of a representation requisite for grant of educational loan. It is further stated that though he under took repay the loan properly in the event of the loan being granted, the respondent was not inclined to consider the claim of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that when the petitioner approached the bank for sanction of educational loan, the bank agreed to consider his request and advised the petitioner to submit an application in the proper format with requisite enclosures. The application dated 07.10.2009 submitted by the petitioner was received by the bank on 08.10.2009 and immediately a card was sent on 09.10.2009 being the "Call on Us" to the petitioner and a registered letter was sent on 12.10.2009, calling upon the petitioner to meet the respondent any time between 4.00 to 5.00 p.m on or before 16.10.2009. It is further stated that parallelly the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition on 08.10.2009. It is further stated that on 16.10.2009 the petitioner and his son came to the respondent bank and the Branch Manager spent over one hour and assured them that the bank would not reject a loan proposal for educational purposes if they satisfy the eligibility and that there was no need for them to have approached this Court. It is further stated that the bankers are well within their rights to verify the bona fides and credentials of the parties and the application submitted by the petitioner is under consideration and there is absolutely no cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court. Further the respondent bank is attempting to follow the procedure and prudential norms of banking and it is the duty of each officer to follow the prescribed procedure and guidelines in banking operations and the writ petitioner has approached this Court in needless haste. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank brought to the notice of this Court, the loan application submitted by the petitioner and received by the bank on 08.10.2009, the copy the "Call on Us" letter and the circular issued by the Divisional Manager of the respondent bank providing to educational loans filed in the typed set of papers. The learned counsel would further submit that the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was uncalled for as the bank was processing the application.
4. Therefore, the issue to be considered in the present writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of education loan for his son's education.
5. Based on the policy decision of Government of India, the Model Education Loan Scheme was announced during the month of November 2007. Under the scheme, it has been stated that Education is central to the Human Resources Development and empowerment in any country. National and State level policies are framed to ensure that this basic need of the population is met through appropriate public and private sector initiatives. While government endeavour to provide primary education to all on a universal basis, higher education is progressively moving into the domain of private sector. With a gradual reduction in government subsidies higher education is getting more and more costly and hence the need for institutional funding in this area. It has been further stated that the scope of education has widened both in India and abroad covering new courses in diversified areas. Development of human capital is a national priority and it should be the endeavour of all that no deserving student is denied opportunity to pursue higher education for want of financial support. Loans for education should be seen as an investments for economic development and prosperity. Knowledge and information would be the driving force for economic growth in the coming years. It has also been stated that based on recommendations made by a study Group, IBA had prepared a Model Educational Loan Scheme in the year 2001 which was advised to banks for implementation by Reserve Bank of India vide circular No.RPCD.PLNFS.BC.No.83/06.12.05/2000-01 dated April 28, 2001 along with certain modifications suggested by the Government of India. In line with the announcement made by the Hon'ble Finance Minister in his Budget Speech for the year 2004-05, IBA had communicated certain changes in the security norms applicable to educational loans with limits above Rs.4 lakhs and up to Rs.7.5 lakhs.
6. With the above mentioned avowed object, the Model Scheme was prepared based on the suggestions of the Study Group. The object of the scheme was that every meritorious student though poor is provided with an opportunity to pursue education with the financial support from the banking system with affordable terms and conditions.
7. The scheme could be adopted by all commercial Banks. It is further stated that the scheme only provides broad guidelines to the banks for operationalising the educational loan scheme and the implementing bank will have the discretion to make changes suiting to the convenience of the students/parents to make it more customer friendly.
8. On a perusal of the above scheme, it is to be noted that technicalities cannot put against the petitioner for the purpose of sanction of educational loan. Further the concept of service area has been given go by based on policy decision taken by the Government. In that view of the matter, the banks are bound to consider the application in accordance with the scheme."
9. Thus in view of the above policy of the Government and taking into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit to the effect that the respondent bank has agreed to consider the application for educational loan submitted by the petitioner, I am of the view that the following direction would meet the ends of justice.
10. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent bank to process the petitioner's loan application submitted in the prescribed format and received by the bank on 08.10.2009 and after satisfying themselves with the particulars furnished therein, process such application and pass appropriate orders for grant of educational loan to the petitioner without insisting upon the service area restriction or any other like restriction and disburse the loan keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved by the scheme announced by the Government of India, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
21.01.2010 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Pbn T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
pbn To The Branch Manager, Canara Bank Alathur Village, Avinasi Taluk, Thiruppur District.
Pre-Delivery Order in W.P.No.20542/2009 21.01.2010