1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:01.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN WP(MD)No.13065 of 2011 R.Varadharajan :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Union Loan Point Branch, Rosary Church Building, Town Hall Road, Madurai. 2.The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Madurai Retail Asset Branch, Rosary Church Building, Town Hall Road, Madurai. :Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to disburse the educational loan of Rs.7,50,000/- to the petitioner's son V.Shiva for pursuing overseas education as per the sanctioning order of the respondents dated 8.10.2011. For Petitioner :Mr.K.Samidurai For Respondents:Mr.T.Govindasamy ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to disburse the educational loan of Rs.7,50,000/-. 2.Heard Mr.K.Samidurai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Govindasamy, learned counsel for the respondents. 3.The respondents have filed a counter. It is seen from the counter that the petitioner applied for a loan to enable his son to study MBA at De Montford University, U.K. The loan was sanctioned subject to certain conditions. But the University refused admission. Therefore, the petitioner's son secured admission in another course viz., M.Sc., (IBM). The respondents agreed to sanction loan even for pursuing the said course at the same University. 4.However, according to the respondents, there was a failure on the part of the petitioner in respect of 3 matters viz., (i) the production of Visa (ii) the production of guarantee letters from third parties and (iii) the execution of security loan documents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.The petitioner's son had already obtained Visa and gone to U.K. Though the petitioner claims that the third party guarantee letters have been signed, it is disputed. Therefore, the first two issues can be easily sorted out. 6.In so far as the third issue is concerned, it is admitted by the respondents that collateral security in the form of documents of title relating to immovable properties, is not mandatory for the sanction of the loan of Rs.7,50,000/- for educational purposes. But according to the respondents, the third parties (family friends of the petitioner) themselves voluntarily furnished xerox copies of title deeds, which necessitated the bank to prepare a sanction advice that contained a clause for furnishing documents of title as collateral security. 7.The stand taken by the respondents discloses that third party collateral security of immovable property is not mandatory. Therefore, the bank need not insist upon it. 8.In so far as the other two requirements are concerned, the petitioner is obliged to fulfil the same. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to furnish (i) the copy of the Visa of his son and (ii) the guarantee letters duly executed by the third parties. If necessary, the petitioner shall take the third parties to the Bank for the guarantee letters to be executed and handed over to the respondents personally. Upon the petitioner doing so, the respondents shall prepare a fresh loan advice, without collateral security and do the needful, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Union Loan Point Branch, Rosary Church Building, Town Hall Road, Madurai. 2.The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Madurai Retail Asset Branch, Rosary Church Building, Town Hall Road, Madurai. Svn RP/10.12.2011/2P/3C. W.P.(MD)No.13065 of 2011 01.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/