IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16611 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASWATHY GOPALAKRISHANAN, RESIDING AT KALLUPARAMBIL MELETHILIL, KOZHUVALOOR P.O.,CHENGANNUR,NOW STUDENT 1ST YEAR B.SC.NURSING,SRI.VENKATESWARA COLLEGE OF NURSING, NO.98,MARUTHI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,PEENYA,2ND STAGE, BANGALORE. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,NEW DELHI. 2. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE,POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SBT, KOZHUVALOOR,CHENGANNUR. ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R2,3 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 16611 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Scheduled Caste student who got admission to a self financing college for B.Sc. Nursing. She applied to respondents 2 and 3 for education loan for paying fees for the course. The fees for the course is Rs.4 lakhs. The petitioner applied for that much amount as loan. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent originally promised to pay Rs.4 lakhs as loan. But, later on, he restricted it to Rs.2.5 lakhs and when the petitioner protested, he snatched away the D.D. for the 1st instalment out of Rs.2.5 lakhs and passbook from the petitioner. The petitioner complained to the District Collector and the DySP who summoned the 3rd respondent. Since no effective action came from those quarters, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; “I. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to sanction the scheduled fee of Karnataka as expeditiously as possible, at any rate before the commencements of the next Academic year 2010-11. II. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to educational loan of 4 lakhs without interest on the co-obligation of her parents.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein the 3rd respondent has denied all the allegations against the 3rd respondent. He has stated that as per the rules applicable he does w.p.c.16611/10 2 not have the authority to grant loan in excess of Rs.2.5 lakhs. 3. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner along with which, the petitioner has produced Exts.P11 and P12, which according to the petitioner, would substantiate the contentions of the petitioner. 4. I have gone through Exts.P11 and P12. After going through the same, I am of opinion that more than supporting the claim of the petitioner it goes to disprove that claim. In Ext.P11, of course, the Indian Bank Association has informed its member banks that where the colleges, even though self financing colleges, are recognised and affiliated by the State Government and Universities, loan can be given to the students who obtained admission in the management quota also. But it specifically states that fees to be considered for the purpose of granting education loan is as per the fees structure as approved by the State Government or a Government approved regulatory body for merit seats in Government colleges/private self financing colleges/co-operative colleges and colleges run by universities, as the case may be. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that Rs.2.5 lakhs is the loan for which the petitioner would be eligible, going by the fees structure prescribed by the State Government. As far as Ext.P12 is concerned, although the same refers to Rs.4 lakhs that is only for the purpose of stipulating the security to be insisted upon for the purpose granting loans. It says that for loans w.p.c.16611/10 3 upto Rs.4 lakhs, co-obligation of parents is required. But for loans above Rs.7.5 lakhs, co-obligation of parents together with collateral security in the form of suitable third party guarantee is required to be provided. That document does not stipulate the limit of education loan for which a student is eligible. Again Ext.P12, which is issued by the Reserve Bank of India also stipulates thus: “... In respect of admission through management quota for nursing courses, the fees to be considered for the purpose should be within the fees structure as approved by the State Government or a Government approved Regulatory Body for merits in Government Colleges/Private Self Financing Colleges, Co-operative and Colleges run by Universities, as the case may be.” That being so, more than supporting the petitioner's case, Exts.P11 and P12 go to disprove her claim. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The bank shall issue D.D. for the first instalment of loan out of Rs.2.5 lakhs to the petitioner within one week from today, if not already given. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge