IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19404 of 2009(O) -------------------------------------- OS.138/2009 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. K.SASIDHARAN,S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, KRISHNAVILASOM,MATTOM NORTH, MAVELIKARA. 2. NISHIKANTH.S.,S/O.SASIDHARAN .K. KRISHNAVILASOM, MATTOM, NORTH, MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, (MAIN BRANCH), B.M.COMPLEX, MAVELIKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19404 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction granting sufficient time to the petitioners to discharge the liability of Educational Loan sanctioned by the respondent Bank to enable the second petitioner to complete his studies and to secure a job. ii) To declare that the recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank is against Ext.P1 Scheme and against the very purpose and object of sanctioning Educational Loan. W.P.(C).No.19404 OF 2009 Page numbers iii) To declare that the suit O.S No.18/2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikara is premature. iv) Issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S 138/2009 of the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikara. The first petitioner is the father of the second defendant. For the purpose of higher studies of the second petitioner a loan was availed from the first respondent / bank the period of which expires only on completion of the course of studies of the second petitioner, which has not been completed. At the time of filing of the suit according to the petitioner, he is continuing his studies in W.P.(C).No.19404 OF 2009 Page numbers Engineering. Before the completion of his course, in violation of the Scheme under which the loan was extended the respondent filed the above suit before the Civil Court seeking recovery of the loan amount advanced. In the above circumstance petitioners have approached this court and filed this petition seeking the afore mentioned reliefs invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the bank proceeded with the filing of the suit after conducting an enquiry and getting reliable information that the second petitioner is presently employed. That statement is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners submitting that he has still not completed his course. Whatever that be in the nature of the dispute raised that W.P.(C).No.19404 OF 2009 Page numbers the suit filed by the respondent is premature the petitioners have to raise that contention before the court in which it is instituted and that question cannot be agitated by way of a writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted this court to give a direction to the bank to consider the representation from the petitioners for an enlargement of time to remit the loan amount. If any such representation is given by the petitioners the bank is expected to consider it on merits, for which no direction from this court is required. The writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv