Karnataka High Court
Sri. Naveen Javari T.J vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.10396 of 2013 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI. NAVEEN JAVARI T.J
S/O JAVARA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
(REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER)
SRI NARAYANA
S/O KRISHNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
EXCISE SUB INSPECTOR
R/O THIRUMALAPURA
KANAGANAMARADI(P)
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DIST-571434. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri OMKAR K B, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01
2. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR
NATIONAL SCHEDULE CASTE FINANCE
& DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION(NSFDC)
14TH FLOOR, CORE 1 & 2, SCOPE MINOR
LAKSHIMINAGAR DISTRCT CENTRE
DELHI-110092
2
3. ASSISTANT ZONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL SCHEDULE CASTE
FINANCE & DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION(NSFDC)
V FLOOR MAIN TOWER
VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER
B R AMBEDKAR BEEDI
BANGALORE-560001
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
DR B R AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
9TH & 10TH FLOOR
VISWESHWARAIAH MINI TOWER
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
5. THE DISTRICT MANAGER(CO ORDINATOR)
DR B R AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD, MANDYA,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
6. THE BRANCH MANAGER
MANDYA MAIN BRANCH
STATE BANK OF INDIA
NO.217/A, R P ROAD
SUBHASH NAGAR
MANDYA-571401. .. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri H G VASANTH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R4
Sri A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R6
Sri H V MANJUNATHA, AGA, FOR R1)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE RESOLUTION PASSED AT THE MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT CORPORATION ON 2.12.2011
TEMPORARILY STOPPING THE GRANT OF EDUCATION
LOAN AS PER ANNEXURE-F AS ILLEGAL, VOID AND IN-
3
OPERATIVE, ITEM NO.9 OF MEETING RESOLUTION OF
THE 187TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR,
HELD ON 2.12.2011 AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND DIRECT
THE 4TH AND 5TH RESPONENTS TO CONSIDER HE
LOAN APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER AND TO
IMMEDIATELY GRANT TH EDUCATION LOAN TO STUDY
IN ABROAD AS PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION DATED
28.11.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
This writ petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for declaration that the resolution passed in a meeting of Board of Directors of the 4th respondent/Corporation on 2.12.201 temporarily stopping grant of education loan as per Annexure-M. The decision taken on Item No.9 of the 187th meeting of the Board of Director is also assailed. Further appropriate direction is sought to direct the respondents to grant education loan to study abroad.
2. The petitioner claims to belong to Korama community, which is classified as schedule caste. He had applied for admission for six years integrated MD Physician (including MBBS) course in Odessa National Medical University, Ukraine. In that view, since he 4 desired that he should be funded for the said education and according to him, the National Schedule Caste Finance & Development Corporation - 2nd respondent herein was to grant education loan, an application as at Annexure-E was made to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner contends that since the 4th respondent is a Nodal Agency for grant of such loan, the 2nd respondent is stated to have forwarded the application made by the petitioner for the purpose of consideration as indicated in communication dated 27.8.2012 (Annexure-L to the petition).
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No.2 and 4 instead of considering the application, have relied on the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent as at Annexure-F indicating that the loan cannot be granted when scholarship has been granted and it would be an additional burden on the 4th respondent if loan is granted. The petitioner contends that he has not availed of any scholarship and he had made an application only for grant 5 of loan and in such circumstance, consideration of the 4th respondent in this regard is not justified.
4. The 4th respondent, on the otherhand, who have filed objection statement would refer to the government order and the proceedings of the government to contend that the loan is not admissible and the same has been subsequently discontinued. It is also the case of the 4th respondent that no guarantee has been granted by the government to enable the 4th respondent to consider the request of the petitioner.
5. On these brief contentions, which have been urged on both sides, what is necessary to be noticed is that the petitioner claiming to be entitled for grant of loan by the 2nd respondent, has made the application to the 2nd respondent. Even at this juncture, the petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent, which requires to consider the application of the petitioner, keeping in view the object of grant of such loan, being to benefit the persons belonging 6 to the weaker sections of society should not have denied such benefit to the petitioner.
6. In this background, a perusal of the communication dated 27.8.2012 (Annexure-L) would disclose that the 2nd respondent while addressing the communication to the 4th respondent has communicated that the 2nd respondent provides loan upto Rs.20 lakhs per beneficiary for studies abroad. It is further communicated therein that the admissibility of loan would be decided after taking into consideration of the unit cost under different heads described therein to come to a conclusion that if the scholarship/grant amount does not meet the entire expenses of the components, the 4th respondent has to consider to sponsor the applications for studies abroad while confirming that the same may be covered under the existing State Government Guarantee. In view of the contentions put forth by the petitioner, if it is found that the petitioner has not availed any scholarship or grant for the studies, setting off the expenses towards the components indicated therein would 7 not arise. Therefore, the only question that was required to be noticed by the 4th respondent is with regard to the sponsorship of the application. It is no doubt that the State Government Guarantee is not covered.
7. In such circumstance, when the 2nd respondent has forwarded the application to the 4th respondent, this aspect ought to have been looked into by the 4th respondent relating to grant of scholarship and the nature of consideration to be made and if there was any impediment for the 4th respondent to sponsor the application, it should be intimated to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent was thereafter to have taken a decision when in the said letter (Annexure-L) it is clarified by the 2nd respondent that it provides loan of Rs.20 lakhs. In the absence of there being scholarship being granted, which the 4th respondent was to consider, an appropriate decision could have thereafter been taken by the 2nd respondent on receiving the reply from the 4th respondent. In such circumstance, since the 4th respondent has not reverted back to the 2nd respondent, the application of the 8 petitioner is kept in suspension inasmuch as neither the same has it been rejected by the 2nd respondent nor has it been considered under its scheme if the 4th respondent states that it cannot be sponsored for any other reason. This decision ultimately has to be taken by the 2nd respondent. Unfortunately, the 2nd respondent is not represented before this Court and therefore the stand taken by the 4th respondent cannot be considered and adjudicated herein. However, appropriate direction is required to be issued to the 4th respondent to take note of the communication dated 27.8.2012 and in the light of the same, an examination be made and details of the same be furnished to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent would thereafter look into the justification putforth by the 4th respondent and in that view, consider the application independently to assess the eligibility of the petitioner and thereafter consider grant of loan to the petitioner.
8. In view of the petitioner having made a declaration that he has not availed any scholarship or grant in that regard, the 4th respondent is directed to 9 respond to the communication dated 27.8.2012 by reverting back to the 2nd respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 2nd respondent while considering the reply submitted by the 4th respondent shall keep in view the scheme under which it has been communicated that it can provide loan of Rs.20 lakhs per beneficiary and it shall consider the application of the petitioner based on the said provisions and intimate the petitioner the result of such consideration within four weeks from the date on which reply of the 4th respondent is received by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner to furnish additional materials, if any, to the 2nd respondent for further consideration of the application.
9. Insofar as the impleadment of the 6th respondent herein is concerned, I am of the opinion that the same need not be gone into detail inasmuch as if any loan is sought for by the petitioner with the 6th respondent, the same would be dealt with by the parties as per the contractual obligation between them and the 10 RBI regulations are to be followed in that regard by the 6th respondent.
In terms of the above directions, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm.