1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHA W.P.(MD) No.8837 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 P.Duraipandian .. Petitioner Vs 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi – 1. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Vivekanandapuram, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to the impugned communication in LB/ETL/5 dated 06.10.2010 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to provide the educational loan amount to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Louis for M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.Suresh For Respondent-2 : Mr.S.Sethuraman O R D E R The petitioner preferred this petition challenging the impugned communication dated 06.10.2010 in LB/ETL/5 sent by the second respondent with a prayer to quash the same and consequently to direct the second respondent to provide the educational loan amount to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of time stipulated by this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a retired Teacher and his son by name D.A.Athiban Sivasubin obtained 1080 marks in Higher Secondary Course and has been selected and admitted in Sri Muthukumaran https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Medical College during the Academic year 2010 to 2011. The said College is self financing college and it has issued a bonafide certificate furnishing the particulars of fee payable for initial four years stating that it would cost Rs.4,64,000/- every year. The petitioner approached the second respondent bank seeking the relief of education loan to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- as per his representation / application dated 06.10.2010. The second respondent replied as per his communication dated 06.10.2010 stating that the petitioner's application has been returned due to out of service area. The said statement is false one and in respect of the same area, the neighbour's son of the petitioner was granted the education loan to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/-. 3. The petitioner has also been drawing his monthly retirement pension from the second respondent bank and as such, the said bank comes well within the jurisdiction of the residence of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner sent legal notice dated 07.12.2010 to the second respondent bank and the second respondent bank sent its reply dated 20.12.2010 calling upon the petitioner to approach the bank with all the certificates pertaining to his son. Accordingly, on 30.12.2010, the petitioner met the second respondent again and at that time, the second respondent directed the petitioner to obtain a legal opinion from the panel lawyers of the bank. Thereafter, the petitioner sent another legal notice dated 13.01.2011 to the second respondent expressing his grievances and sought for the relief of education loan. Even the same is also ignored by the second respondent. But on the other hand, the second respondent subsequently, sent a further communication dated 25.01.2011 calling upon the petitioner to approach the bank with all the documents towards security for obtaining education loan. Accordingly, the petitioner produced all the relevant documents relating the immovable property, viz., Patta, Adangal and other tax receipts. In spite of the same, the second respondent has not sanctioned the educational loan and as such, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court with this petition with the above said prayer. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has been driven from pillar to post unnecessarily for seeking the relief of education loan to his son who pursuing his medical course as he got admission through the government quota. It is contended that the petitioner preferred his application as early as on 06.10.2010 and the same was returned through the impugned communication on the same day stating that the petitioner does not come within the service area of the said bank. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a retired teacher and he is also getting his pensionary benefits only through the second respondent bank and as such, the petitioner is to apply only to the said bank for seeking educational bank for his son. It is contended that thereafter, the very same bank, viz., the second respondent herein sought the petitioner to produce certain document including the document relating to the immovable property and as such, the first return to the effect that the said bank does not come within the service area is not correct. It is also contended that inspite of producing the revenue documents, namely, patta, adangal and tax receipts, the application of the petitioner seeking the relief of education loan is yet to be processed and sanctioned and as such, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5. Per contra, Mr.Sethuraman, learned counsel for the second respondent bank would contend that the bank would not come within the service area enabling the petitioner to seek the relief of education loan. Therefore, it is contended that there is no fault on the part of the second respondent bank in not processing the application submitted by the petitioner for education loan for the purpose his son's education in medial course. 6. This Court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned communication dated 06.10.2010. 7. At the outset, it is to be stated that application of the petitioner, a retired teacher, seeking education loan for his son's medical course was rejected by the second respondent bank without any reasonable cause. It is pertinent to note that the application itself was submitted by the petitioner for sanction of education loan on 06.10.2010, but the same was returned on the same day through the impugned communication dated 06.10.2010 on the ground that the petitioner's residence would come out of service area. It is curious to note that inspite of sending such impugned communication, the very same second respondent bank as per the communication dated 20.12.2010 called upon the petitioner to approach the second respondent with all the certificates pertaining to the son of the petitioner. The fact remains that the petitioner also submitted all the relevant records and also stated that the similarly placed person, namely, the neighbour of the petitioner has been granted the education loan to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- for his son. It is seen that the petitioner has also sent a legal notice dated 13.01.2011. 8. Yet another factor to be borne in mind of this Court is to the effect that the petitioner has also submitted before this Court that the petitioner is ready and willing to submit security for the sanction of education loan to the tune of R.10,00,000/-. 9. It is needless to state that for undergoing M.B.B.S., Course by the son of the petitioner, being a retired teacher, necessarily has to incur heavy expenses. It is seen that as per the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has also obtained bonafide certificate from the medical college furnishing the particulars of fee structure which discloses that the petitioner has to incur a sum of Rs.4,64,000/- every year and as such, the petitioner has rightly sought for the relief of education loan to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. As already pointed out, the second respondent inspite of issuing the impugned communication dated 06.10.2010 stating that the application of the petitioner has come outside the service area, sent another communication subsequently on 20.12.2010 calling upon the petitioner to produce all the certificates pertaining to the medical course of his son. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned communication dated 06.10.2010 issued by the second respondent is liable to be quashed. It is already pointed out that even the petitioner being a retired teacher drawing his retiral benefits only through the second respondent bank. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned communication issued by the second respondent dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 06.10.2010 in LB/ETL/5 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the second respondent shall process the application dated 06.10.2010 submitted by the petitioner by following the rules and regulations and as per the terms and conditions and sanction education loan as sought for by the petitioner. It is made clear that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall also furnish adequate security, as submitted before this Court, to the bank. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. gg Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Records] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi – 1. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Vivekanandapuram, Kanyakumari District. +1 cc to M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate SR.No.42449. W.P.(MD) No.8837 of 2011 & M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:01.12.2011 4P/4C RPB 07.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/