IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 2920 of 2008(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- MUHAMMED ANSAR A.R. ANSAR BHAWAN, THAMARAKULAM PO, ALAPPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.KAVITHA GANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANORE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,HEAD OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MANAGER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANORE THAMARAKULAM BRANCH, THAMARAKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 3. JAYASREE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANORE THAMARAKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R1 & 2 SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 2920 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT A student, who is unable to support his studies because of want of funds, has approached the 2nd respondent bank for an educational loan. The same has been rejected. It is under the above circumstance the petitioner has come up before this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding 2nd respondent to receive exhibit P7 from the petitioner and consider the same for granting loan, within such time as may be fixed by this Honourable Court; ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding 2nd respondent to receive exhibit P7 from the petitioner and disburse amount of Rs.90,000/- due for remittance of fee for the 2nd semester and Rs.25,500/- towards registration and DLP Semester III, IV & V for IGNOU forthwith;” 2. Petitioner submits that he is a very bright student who has secured very high marks in the Secondary and Higher Secondary level. He has joined a course in Merchant Shipping, which is a course recognised by the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India. WPC :2920/2008 -:2:- In fact, it is a very rare course, only one of its kind in India, which guarantees an average salary of approximately Rs.1 lakh per month after successful completion of the course. In spite of the same, the application for loan has been rejected on the ground that the course does not satisfy the guidelines prescribed for the purpose, by the head office of the Bank, which the petitioner would submit is clearly arbitrary and unsustainable. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank would submit that definite guidelines are prescribed in the matter of sanctioning educational loans as contained in Annexure-II, wherein only courses leading to diploma or degree etc., conducted by Colleges/Universities approved by UGC/Govt./AICTE/AIBMS/ICMR etc., qualify for education loan. Since the particular course does not satisfy the above condition, the bank is right in rejecting the application for loan, is the contention raised. It is also submitted that as per the new scheme framed for education loans, the petitioner is not entitled to the loan. A third contention is also raised to the effect that the petitioner's father had earlier availed of a loan, repayment of which he had defaulted. But he later paid off the loan availing of benefits of WPC :2920/2008 -:3:- one time settlement. Therefore the bank considers a loan to the petitioner as a business risk. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am of the opinion that the bank has taken a myopic view about the matter. They have confined themselves to courses approved by UGC/Govt./AICTE/AIBMS/ICMR etc. for the purpose of granting education loans, I am of the opinion that the epithet “etc.”, appearing in Clause (ix) at page 5 of Annexure-II of the statement filed by the Bank would mean that other courses which are recognised by an appropriate Government authority would also qualify for education loans. In fact, many new generation courses are being started with approval from various statutory bodies. If the Bank takes the stand that the approving authority is not mentioned in their guidelines, they would not grant educational loans, that would certainly be a myopic view. The vistas of education are becoming wider and wides as times go by. The bank shall also move with the times. When new generation courses are recognised and approved by some Government authorities, the Bank has a duty to consider the same also in accordance with the guidelines. One must understand that WPC :2920/2008 -:4:- the course mentioned in Annexure-II cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be exhaustive. That being so, I do not find any merit in the first contention raised by the Bank. 5. Regarding the second contention, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the revised guidelines applies only to loans above Rs.2.50 lakhs and up to Rs.4.75 lakhs, whereas the loan applied for by the petitioner is for Rs.2.15 lakhs only. To deny the loan on the third ground also appears to be too harsh. Generally persons with difficulties in raising funds immediately for a purpose come to the bank for loans. Just because the father initially defaulted repayment of loan, that cannot be held against the petitioner totally. It must be remembered that the father, in spite of his difficulties, had ultimately paid off the entire amounts availing the benefit of one time settlement scheme. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the rejection of the application for loan on the above three grounds is really harsh and the Bank should reconsider the same. In any event, the scheme provides for a deviation in appropriate cases. At least the Bank could have invoked that clause to grant the petitioner the loan. WPC :2920/2008 -:5:- In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 and 2, to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the observations contained in this judgment and take a fresh decision as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb