1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:18.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.737 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Udayakumar : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, South Zone, Madurai. 2.The Manager, State Bank of India, Tiruchuli Branch, Virudhunagar District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to grant educational loan to the petitioner. For Petitioner :Mr.N.Anandakumar For Respondents :Mr.S.Sethuraman O R D E R ********** The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to provide educational loan so as to enable him to continue his education in Madurai Law College. 2. The petitioner belongs to a poor agricultural family. The petitioner after completing his college studies joined the Law College at Madurai. According to the petitioner, he was not in a position to bear the expenses in connection with his studies and as such he approached the second respondent for sanctioning educational loan. The second respondent under the pretext of consulting the first respondent dragged him from pillar to post and therefore he was constrained to file the Writ petition. 3. Even though sufficient opportunity was given to the respondents to file their response, no counter affidavit has been filed so far. 4. The limited request of the petitioner is to dispose of his representation, dated 29.12.2010. The said representation was submitted for sanctioning educational loan. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. The bank is bound to consider the application of the petitioner for granting educational loan under the Revised Model Educational Loan Scheme. The Scheme was framed with a laudable purpose. After all Bank is only granting temporary financial assistance and ultimately the petitioner has to repay the said amount within the time stipulated in the Scheme. 6. There is nothing on record to show that an application has been filed in the prescribed format. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to approach the second respondent with an application in the prescribed format along with the required documents. 7. The second respondent is directed to provide an application form to the petitioner for the purpose of availing educational loan. The petitioner is directed to submit duly filled application form along with required documents before the second respondent and in the event of making any such application within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the second respondent on merits and in accordance with the Revised Model Educational Loan Scheme as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three weeks thereafter. 8. The Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. pm Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Crl side] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, South Zone, Madurai. 2.The Manager, State Bank of India, Tiruchuli Branch, Virudhunagar District. +1 cc to Mr.N.Anandakumar, Advocate Sr.No.9380. W.P.(MD)No.737 of 2011 Dated:18.02.2011 2P/4C RPB 22.02.2011[I.T.] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/