BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:14.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR WP(MD)No.6505 of 2011 S.Mahesh :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Canara Bank,Circle Office,Madurai,Through its General Manager. 2.The Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Tenkasi Road, Sengottai. :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 relating to the impugned order in MSCR/EL/035/2011-12, dated 12.05.2011 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction educational loan of Rs.3,32,000/- to the petitioner accepting the parent as co-borrower. For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thambi For R2 : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran,Additional Government Pleader ORDER The Writ petition has been filed to grant educational loan for the petitioner who is undergoing his third year B.E(E.E.E) at MEPCO Engineering College at Sivakasi. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the request of the petitioner has been rejected stating as follows: "As per the Model Educational Loan Scheme of IBA, Co-borrower having overdues and defaulted in Bank Loan, the loan is not to be considered. In the present proposal Mr.Subramanian being father and the co-borrower has overdues with the State Bank of India, Tenkasi branch. The bank has informed that the loan taken by him is under default and the legal proceedings for recovery under SERFEASI ACT are initiated against him. 3.The reason given in the impugned proceedings is contrary to the Model Educational Loan Scheme formulated by the Reserve Bank of India in circular, dated 28.04.2001 as amended. The very same issue was considered by me in W.P.Nos.17507 and 17508 of 2010 reported in (2011) 1 MLJ 1052 (G.Dhivya and Another vs. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Sengundram Branch and another). In the said decision, it has been clearly held that if the co-applicant parent had taken loan for other than educational purposes for example agricultural or business purpose, student cannot be disentitled to educational loan. 4.The same analogy will be applicable to the present case. The loan availed by the father of the petitioner, cannot be a ground to reject such benefit. The ratio of the decision cited supra, is squarely applicable to the present case. 5.Accordingly, the impugned proceedings is set aside and the second respondent bank is directed to grant educational loan to the petitioner as per procedure. The second respondent bank is also directed to expedite the loan application considering the urgency expressed by the petitioner to pay the college fee. 6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is ordered. No Costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The General Manager, The Canara Bank, Circle Office, Madurai. 2.The Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Tenkasi Road, Sengottai. +1CC to Mr.T.S.R.Venkataramana, Advocate. SR.No.23036. +1CC to Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, Advocate. SR.No.23117. Pm/RP/15.07.11/1P/5C. W.P.(MD)No.6505 of 2011,14.07.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/