IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 32541 of 2008(Y) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.PREMLAL, ASARIPARAMBU, VANDANAM P.O., NEERKUNNAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV.MR.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- BANKING OMBUDSMAN, (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP), RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J., MR.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.32541/2008 Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 31/07/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ACADEMIC FEE SCHEDULE DTD. 20/06/08. EXT.P2(A): COPY OF THE HOSTEL FEE SCHEDULE DTD. 20/06/08. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, DTD. 24/07/08. EXT.P3(A): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE CSB, DTD. 6/08/08. EXT.P3(B): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE CANARA BANK, DTD. 2/07/08. EXT.P3(C): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, DTD. 4/03/08. EXT.P3(D): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE UCO BANK DTD. 24/07/08. EXT.P3(E): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK DTD. 24/07/08. EXT.P3(F): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK DTD. 25/07/08. EXT.P3(G): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK DTD. 21/07/08. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 11/08/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 19/08/08. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 17/09/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L P.A.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).32541/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner applied for an educational loan for the benefit of his son who had secured admission to the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering Course (AME) in the July 2008 session. Course is a three year 'Professional Licence Course stated to be approved by the Director General of Civil Aviation. The total expenses for prosecuting the course, would be more than 6 Lakhs, as is evidenced by Ext.P2 series. Petitioner who is a driver of a stage carriage therefore had to seek assistance by way of an educational loan and according to him, he submitted an application before the Federal Bank, Vandanam Branch,State Bank of Travancore Vandanam Branch & The Punjab National Bank, Alappuzha, the first and second among them are stated to be situated within 200 meteres from the W.P.(C).32541/2008 2 permanent residence of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner was asked by these three Banks for details and it also seems that he approached the Bank authorities on more than one occasion. But the loan was not sanctioned. In these circumstances, petitioner approached the respondent, Banking Ombudsman with Ext.P4 complaint. Complaint was taken on file. But ultimately by Ext.P6, it was rejected stating that two among the Banks are not situated near the residence of the petitioner and the third Bank informed the Banking Ombudsman that since the course in relation to which educational loan was sought for, was not a Regular Degree/Diploma course, existing guidelines did not permit the sanctioning of the educational loan. Ext.P6 contains a further statement to the effect that non sanctioning of the loan is not a matter which is otherwise cognizable by the Banking Ombudsman under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006. Ext.P6 has been challenged in this writ petition. W.P.(C).32541/2008 3 2. Respondent has entered appearance. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. I have perused the Banking Ombudsman Scheme of 2006. 3. One of the aspects which forms the subject the matter of a complaint in terms of clause 8(2)(c) of the scheme is the “non-acceptance of application for loans without furnishing valid reasons to the applicant”. A reading of Ext.P4 complaint in its entirety, would show that the substratum of the allegation raised by the petitioner is the unjustified denial of loan sought for by the petitioner. If the denial of such facility was with valid reasons, the same must be furnished to the applicant and if reasons are not afforded to the applicant, same affords adequate reasons to invoke the jurisdiction of the Banking Ombudsman. In these circumstances, I am of the view that a reconsideration of W.P.(C).32541/2008 4 Ext.P4 at the hands of the respondent is necessary. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is set aside. Respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 complaint afresh. Petitioner or his authorized representative may be heard before orders are passed and it shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the concerned Banks give any explanation to the Banking Ombudsman, it would only be in conformity with the principles of natural justice that copies of such replies be given to the applicant and he be heard on the same before final orders are passed. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs