IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 28257 of 2008(L) PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOSE PAUL KANICHAI.P, S/O. PAULSON, AGED 20 YEARS, KANICHAI HOUSE, PALAYAMPARAMBU.P.O, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE FOR BANKING DEVELOPMENT - EDUCATION HELP DESK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. MANAGER, CANARA BANK, LEAD BANK OFFICE, SREEKRISHNA BUILDING, WEST PALACE, THRISSUR-22. 4. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN R3 BY ADV.SRI. V.B.HARI NARAYAN ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN SC C.S.BANK FOR R4-5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28257 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, an Engineering Student, approached the 5th respondent Bank seeking an Educational Loan to the tune of Rs.3,92,000/-. The petitioner's loan application was rejected by the bank on the ground that his admission was not on Entrance Test Procedure. He has approached this court for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider and dispose of the representation in this regard. 2. The 2nd respondent is the District Collector and the 3rd respondent is the Manager of Canara Bank, Thrissur. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th Respondent and a statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent. Apart from taking up a contention that they are not amenable to writ jurisdiction, they have further stated that the petitioner got admission under the management quota and educational loans are not provided to persons, who secure admission in the management quota. It is also stated that the petitioner W.P.(C).NO.28257/08 :: 2 :: cannot be considered as either needy nor meritorious. It is pointed out that the petitioner has passed his Plus Two examination in the 2nd attempt and obtained only 51% marks. Moreover, the mother of the student has a total assets valued at Rs.35,60,000/-. For all these reasons, I do not find any justification for interference in this writ petition. The writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge