IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 22543 of 2011(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOSE. J., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PALACKALODIYIL HOUSE, ULIKKAL. P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, ULIKKAL BRANCH, ULIKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 705, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ULIKKAL BRANCH, ULIKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 705, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. R1 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SRI.K.M.ANEESH, SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM), SRI.S.NIKHIL SANKAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 22543 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ADMISSION LETTER DATED 01/08/2011 ISSUED BY ABHAYA COLLEGE OF NURSING, BANGALORE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE FEES STRUCTURE ISSUED BY THE ABHAYA COLLEGE OF NURSING, BANGALORE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 22543 of 2011 P ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the first respondent. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance or representation on behalf of the third respondent. 2. Petitioner and his daughter Deenu Jose, a student of B.Sc Nursing in Abhaya College of Nursing, Bangalore had approached the first respondent for an education loan. Thereupon, the first respondent issued Ext.P4 communication, stating that Ward No.11 of Ulikkal Grama Panchayat, the area where the petitioner resides, comes within the service area of the second respondent and that the petitioner should contact the second respondent for the loan in question. It is stated that thereupon the petitioner contacted the second respondent and the response of the second respondent has been stated thus in W.P.(C) No.22543/2011 : 2 : the writ petition:- “It is submitted that after Ext.P4, petitioner approached the second respondent for educational loan, but the second respondent is not entertaining and even issuing the application form, saying that it is not within their service area and hence they cannot provide loan.” It is with this allegation, the writ petition is filed, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant sanction for educational loan to the petitioner. 3. On behalf of the first respondent, it is submitted that a State Level Bank Committee has been earmarked different areas to different banks for sanctioning loans such as the one sought for by the petitioner. It is stated that the Special Block Level Bankers Committee of Irikkoor Block, in the meeting held on 22.07.2011, to which the second respondent is also a party, has allotted the area in question to the second respondent. 4. Now that such a submission is made by the first W.P.(C) No.22543/2011 : 3 : respondent and as the second respondent is remaining absent, despite notice from this Court, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the second respondent will issue necessary application forms to the petitioner, enabling him and his daughter to make application for getting the education loan. It is directed that, if such an application is made enclosing necessary documents, the same will be processed in accordance with the scheme governing the grant of education loan and the final orders in the matter shall be passed, at any rate, within three weeks of receipt of the application. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/23/09 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge