1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD)No.2250 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 N.H.Nandhini : Petitioner Vs 1.The Senior Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, 221, South Masi Street, Madurai-1. 2.Mr.Vijayalan, Senior Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, 221, South Masi Street, Madurai-1. : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records and proceedings pertaining to the impugned order in Lr.No.0349/28/EL/212, dated 02.02.2011 on the file of respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and further directing the respondent No.1 to process the petitioner application for education loan and grant him the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Abdul Khadar For Respondents : Mr.Pala Ramasamy ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned letter dated 02.02.2011 issued by the first respondent rejecting the application for educational loan. 2. According to the petitioner, at the time when she applied for educational loan, she was residing within the jurisdiction of the respondent bank. But, later on, before the educational loan was to be granted, she has shifted her residence. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has shifted her residence, the respondent bank is now stating that it is not within the service area of the bank and therefore, the respondent bank is denying to grant educational loan. Aggrieved as against the same, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking to consider her application seeking educational loan and the rejection only on the ground that the petitioner is not residing within of the service area of the bank, cannot be taken into consideration. In this connection, she relies upon an order of this Court dated 21.01.2010 made in W.P.No.20542 of 2009 wherein the concept of service area is already given up and therefore, the rejection is illegal. 3. The respondent bank has filed a counter. In the counter, they have only stated that as per the ration card, when the petitioner approached the bank, she was residing in Ward No.59 in Rajan Compound and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 as it was within their service area, they have issued the application form. But, subsequently, on inspection, it was found that the petitioner was residing at No.14/5, Sourashtrapuram 2nd Street, Villapuram, Madurai- 12, which is not their service area. Therefore, they would contend that the petitioner is not eligible to get the loan only on the ground that she is not residing within the jurisdiction or service area. 4. Heard both parties. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 5. The petitioner's main contention is that rejection of her loan application only on the ground that at the time of inspection, she was not residing within the jurisdiction area or the service area of the respondent bank, is not in accordance with law. According to her, when she applied for educational loan, she was residing within the jurisdiction or service area and only thereafter, she has shifted her residence. In the meanwhile, as the respondents have found out that the petitioner is in different area, they have rejected the loan. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order made in W.P.No.20542 of 2009, dated 21.01.2010, wherein in an identical situation, this Court has categorically held that such rejection is not correct and further directed the respondent to consider and pass orders on the loan application. The relevant portion of the above said order is extracted as under: "8.On a perusal of the above scheme, it is to be noted that technicalities cannot put against the petitioner for the purpose of sanction of educational loan. Further the concept of service area has been given go by based on policy decision taken by the Government. In that view of the matter, the banks are abound to consider the application in accordance with the scheme. 9.Thus in view of the above policy of the Government and taking into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit to the effect that the respondent bank has agreed to consider the application for educational loan submitted by the petitioner, I am of the view that the following direction would meet the ends of justice. 10.The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent bank to process the petitioner's loan application submitted in the prescribed format and received by the bank on 08.10.2009 and after satisfying themselves with the particulars furnished therein, process such application and pass appropriate orders for grant of educational loan to the petitioner without insisting upon the service area restriction or any other like restriction and disburse the loan keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved by the scheme announced by the Government of India, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order." Following the above said decision, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent bank is directed to consider the loan application submitted by the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.The Senior Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, 221, South Masi Street, Madurai-1. + 1 cc to M/s.Eddy & Embose Law Firm, SR No.19628 + 1 cc to Mr.Pala Ramasamy, Advocate, SR No.19746 Order made in W.P.(MD)No.2250 of 2011 22.06.2011 srm RJ/5.7.11 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/