IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31574 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALEXANDER JOSEPH, SANJOS BHAVAN, NEDUMKUNNAM (PO), CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KARUKACHAL, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BAN FOR R2 ASG SRI. T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31574 OF 2010(V) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, his second son, Sajay Sanjose Alexander is admitted to an Engineering College for BE- Biotechnology, availing of an Educational loan from the 2nd respondent Bank. It is his case that his educational loan was granted under the Scheme formulated by the Government of India and that as per the scheme, it is to be refunded only after one year of the completion of the course or six months after securing employment which ever is earlier. It is also his case that during the interregnum period interest is not to be serviced. It is also alleged that against these rules, the interest was demanded and thereupon the petitioner, who is also a guarantor, made a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman. However, Banking Ombudsman by Ext.P5 proceedings closed the complaint. It is stated that immediately thereafter the Bank filed O.S.No.524/2010 before the Sub Court Kottayam recalling the entire loan. It is stated that in the suit the Bank has filed Ext.P7, an interlocutory application for attachment before judgment. It is WPC.No.31574 /2010 :2 : in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed. 2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the demand made by the Bank is against the terms of the scheme formulated by the Government of India for extending educational loan to deserving students. It is also his case that his complaint ought to have been entertained by the Banking Ombudsman and that the Banking Ombudsman has wrongly closed the complaint. It is also pleaded that subsequent to the grant of loan Indian Banks Association has issued Ext.P8 circular, benefit of which is also liable to be extended to the loan availed by him. 3. However, the standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent points out that the prayer sought in the writ petition is to stop further proceedings before the Civil Court as unsustainable. It is also his contention that the loan availed of by the petitioner is not one granted under the scheme. Counsel also invited my attention to Ext.P5 in support of this contention. 4. Irrespective of the contentions raised by both sides, facts remains that a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction is seized of the matter in O.S.No.524/2010 filed by the Bank in which the WPC.No.31574 /2010 :3 : petitioner also has entered appearance. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner to urge all his contentions including for the benefit of the scheme formulated by the Government of India as per Ext.P8, in which event it is for the Civil Court to consider those contentions and pass appropriate orders in the matter. Leaving it open to the petitioner to urge his contentions before the Sub Court, Kottayam which is seized of the matter in O.S.No.524/2010, and without expressing anything on the merits of the case the writ petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/