IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WA.No. 1256 of 2011 ------ --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15739/2011 Dated 13/07/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ NIMMIMOL, AGED 22 YEARS, AKKILETHUMELEMURIYIL, PUNTHALA P.O., VENMONEY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.L.RAJ MOHAN SRI.SAJJU.S SRI.C.D.ANIL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KULANADA BRANCH REP. BY THE CHIEF MANAGER, KULANADA, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRANVACORE, KULANADA BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTTAYAM – 686 501. BY SC SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WA 1256/2011 ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC 15739/11 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC 15739/11 /TRUE COPY/ J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1256 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. Petitioner is stated as aggrieved by the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby interference has been declined with regard to the granting of Educational loan in respect of studies for the 4th year B.Tech course. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue considered by the learned Single Judge, whether the petitioner was entitled to have the balance amount out of the total amount of `4 lakhs sought for by way of loan, was not the actual grievance projected in the writ petition. The grievance sought to be redressed was only with respect to the “second loan application” for pursuing her studies for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, which unfortunately was omitted to be considered by the learned Single Judge. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the application preferred by the W.A. No.1256 of 2011 -:2:- appellant/petitioner was only in respect of the studies for the 'second and third' years and that the same was considered and acted upon, disbursing the due amount in accordance with the relevant norms. There was no application by the writ appellant/writ petitioner in respect of the 'fourth year' and that the Bank has filed a statement pointing out the facts and figures in this regard. The learned counsel also submits that the insinuations made against the Bank do not keep the right track of truth. The learned counsel further submits that if the appellant is in requirement of any further amount and an application is preferred before the Bank in this regard, the same will be considered and acted upon at the earliest, in tune with the relevant norms. 4. In the above circumstance, we find that no adjudication is necessary in the matter. The verdict already passed by the learned Single Judge will not stand in the way of the appellant/petitioner in preferring an application before the Bank pointing out the requirements, on which event, the same shall be considered in accordance with the relevant norms issued W.A. No.1256 of 2011 -:3:- by the Reserve Bank of India, and shall be finalised within the shortest possible time, at any rate within the weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb