IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 28842 of 2010(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. JOSE JAMES, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. M.V.CHACKO, MULLONICKAL HOUSE, CHAMAMPATHIL.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 517. 2. PRITTY JOSE, D/O. JOSE JAMES, MULLONICKAL HOUSE, CHAMAMPATHIL PO., KOTTAYAM-686 517. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, CHAMAPATHAL BRANCH, CHAMAPATHAL, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SC, SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28842 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Second petitioner is the daughter of the first petitioner and the second petitioner joined B.Sc Nursing and the petitioners availed of educational loan of Rs.2,47,000/- for the second petitioner. According to the petitioners, the course is of four year duration and was over in October 2008 and that after examinations, the mark lists were issued only in March, 2009. It is stated that thereafter the compulsory internship commenced in April 2009 and it was over in April 2010. Petitioners submit that in terms of the rules of the scheme under which the loan was availed, after the one year meritoriam period, the repayment will start only in April, 2011. According to them, despite the above, the Bank issued communications demanding full payment and it is therefore the writ petition was filed. 2. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. 3. According to the respondent Bank, the Bank was under the impression that there was no internship to be undergone. It is WPC No. 28842/10 :2 : stated that it is on that assumption that the demand was issued. 4. Evidently therefore, the Bank has proceeded on a wrong basis. Therefore, necessarily, the Bank will have to reconsider the whole issue. 5. In that view of the matter, I direct that the petitioners will appraise the aforesaid facts by way of a representation addressed to the 2nd respondent, in which event, the 2nd respondent will take note of the facts so brought to his notice and pass fresh orders in the matter. Counsel for the petitioners submit that so far they have not been intimated of the EMI that is payable. Needless to say that while fresh orders are passed and communicated to the petitioners, the EMI payable by the petitioners will also be duly intimated to them. 6. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp