1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.1257 of 2011 M.Vijayalakshmi : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Union of India, The Ministry of Finance, Rep. by its Finance Secretary, New Delhi. 2.The Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank – Head Office, Anna Salai, Chennai. 3.The Branch Manager,Indian Overseas Bank, A.Vellalapatti Branch, A.Vellalapatti, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in pursuance of the order passed by the third respondent letter dated 29.01.2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents to sanction the Educational Loan of Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner as per the fees structure dated 15.07.2010 issued by the K.S.M. College of Education for Women, Therkkutheru Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District for her B.Ed., CS Course as per her educational loan application dated 22.09.2010 within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen For R1 : Mr.K.Ayyanar, CGC For R2 and R3 : Mrs.S.Srimathy O R D E R The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.01.2011, whereby and where under a sum of Rs.21,500/- was sanctioned as educational loan instead of Rs.60,000/- and seeks a further direction to sanction a sum of Rs.60,000/- as per the fee structure issued by K.S.M. College of Education for Women dated 15.07.2010. 2. The petitioner is undergoing her B.Ed., Course at K.S.M. College of Education for Women, Therkkutheru Post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.501 of 2011 to direct the respondents to sanction a sum of Rs.60,000/-, so as to enable her to meet the expenses in connection with her studies. The said writ petition was allowed and the third respondent was directed to consider the request of the petitioner. Accordingly, the third respondent passed an order sanctioning a sum of Rs.21,500/-. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. According to the petitioner, the certificate issued by K.S.M. College of Education for Women indicates that she has to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- and as such, the amount paid by the third respondent was not sufficient. Therefore, the petitioner wanted this court to quash the sanction order and issue a direction to grant a sum of Rs.60,000/- as educational loan. 4. The Bank filed a counter affidavit, wherein it was indicated that the fee structure was approved by a committee under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.V.Balasubramanian. The fee structure shows that the prescribed fee was only Rs.9,500/-. The hostel fee was prescribed at Rs.12,000/-. The petitioner was eligible only for Rs.21,500/- Therefore, the amount sanctioned was in accordance with the relevant scheme. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. The only issue, which arises for consideration is, as to whether the Bank was justified in restricting the amount. 7. The fee certificate issued by the College clearly shows that the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- for the academic year 2010- 2011. However, the third respondent has sanctioned only a sum of Rs.21,500/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 11.01.2011 in W.A.(MD)No.23 of 2011 in support of his contention that the Division Bench in the said case directed the Bank to pay the tuition fees, mess fees and hostel fees, notwithstanding the fact that the fee fixed by the Committee was substantially less. The third respondent has no case that the certificate issued by the College was not in accordance with their fee structure. The petitioner has to pay the hostel fees, electricity and water charges besides mess fees. The Course in question is B.Ed., Course and as such, the petitioner has to spend for books and other study materials. It was only in the said circumstances, the College wanted the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- for the academic year 2010-2011. 8. The Judgment of the Division Bench relied on by the petitioner clearly applies to the case on hand. The Division Bench in paragraph No.5 of the Judgment observed thus:- “5. In this writ appeal, the grievance expressed by the appellant is that unless and until the mess and hostel fee is paid, the appellant will not be permitted to undergo the Course. The purpose of sanctioning educational loan is to encourage the persons who are not having source of their income to undergo their higher study course and the respondent bank having sanctioned the fee payable is also bound to sanction the mess fee and hostel fee as claimed by the appellant, which is supported by the expenditure certificate issued by the college where the appellant is undergoing the course.” 9. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the Bank was not correct in restricting the amount. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 10. Accordingly, the sanction order, impugned in this writ petition is quashed, in so far as it restricts the amount. The third respondent is directed to sanction the entire amount as indicated in the certificate dated 15.07.2010 issued by K.S.M. College of Education for Women. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is allowed, as indicated above. No costs. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( WRITS ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR rj2 To 1.The Finance Secretary, Union of India, The Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 2.The Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank – Head Office, Anna Salai, Chennai. 3.The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, A.Vellalapatti Branch, A.Vellalapatti, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 1CC TO M/S. S. SRIMATHY, ADVOCATE, SR: 10426: 1CC TO MR. A. HAJAMOHIDEEN, ADVOCATE, SR: 10135: DM:2011::MARCH:01::: W.P.(MD)No.1257 of 2011 25.02.2011 3P:6C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/