IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 36903 of 2007(R) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JISHA K.SHAJI, D/O SHAJI K.OOMMEN, KUTHIRAVATTATHU HOUSE, KALLISSERY P.O., CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI. 3. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, 'METRO PALACE', OPP. ERNAKULAM TOWN RAILWAY STATION, KOCHI-18. 4. THE MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, KALLISSERRY BRANCH, KALLISSERY P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC, R2 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ==================== W.P.(C) NO. 36903 OF 2007 R ==================== Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to disburse the instalments of educational loan to the petitioner. Further direction to the 1st respondent to take appropriate action including coercive measures for compelling the disbursement of the said loan is also sought for. 2. Petitioner submits that the petitioner is a student of B.Sc Nursing in St.Johns, College of Nursing, Kattappana. She had applied for an educational loan from the 4th respondent Bank and though the loan was sanctioned, it was not disbursed and hence the writ petition has been filed. 3. Petitioner submits that the pendency of a suit that was filed by the Bank against her father is stated to be the reason for the refusal to disburse the loan. Referring to Ext.P5, petitioner WPC 36903/07 :2 : submits that the matter was settled and that the 1st respondent had also directed disbursement of the loan. It is despite all these that the Bank is refusing to disburse the loan amount to the petitioner. 4. Bank has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated by the Bank that the loan was not sanctioned to the petitioner as such. According to the Bank, the loan was sanctioned in the name of her father as the principal borrower and the petitioner is only a co-borrower, in her capacity as the beneficiary student. Ext.R2 (a) is the terms of sanction of the loan of Rs.2 lakhs and it is also stated that out of the amount sanctioned, the 1st instalment of Rs.73,535/- have already been disbursed. 5. It is stated that petitioner's father had an account with the Bank and was also issued an ATM card. It is stated that although he did not have any amount available in his SB Account, capitalising on the software snag in the ATM machine, he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.15,000/- on 3/8/06. It is also stated that he used his ATM card again on 4/8/06 and withdrew Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. According to the Bank, WPC 36903/07 :3 : when he refused to repay the amount, the account has been classified as an NPA and the Bank has filed OS 31/07 before the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur for the recovery of the amount. It is submitted that since the principal borrower had illegally withdrawn money in the manner as stated above and as the litigation in relation to the said withdrawal is pending, the Bank could not disburse any further amount until the dispute is settled. 6. Thus from the contentions that are raised by the Bank, it is obvious that the Bank has no dispute that it had agreed to extend the loan facility to the petitioner's father as the principal borrower and the petitioner as the co-obligant. However, the Bank justifies its refusal to disburse the loan with first instalment, relying on the dispute that is going on between the Bank and the petitioner's father,which is the subject matter of OS 31/07. 7. If as a matter of fact, there is a civil dispute that is going on between the parties, and because of that the Bank is declining to advance further amounts to the person against whom the litigation is now going on, this court cannot say that the Bank is at fault in refusing to extend further amounts. The Bank is WPC 36903/07 :4 : entitled to have dealings only with people whom it can repose confidence. In this case, the allegation is that capitalising on a software snag, the principal borrower had illegally withdrawn money using ATM card despite the fact that there was no money available in his savings bank account. Thus if the Bank refuses to deal with a person against whom such grave allegations are made, it will not be proper for this court to exercise the constitutional powers and compell the Bank to continue to deal with such a person. 8. Ext.P5 relied on by the petitioner also does not improve her case. Firstly the District Collector has no statutory power to direct the bank disburse any amount. Ext.P5 can at best be taken only as a suggestion, the non compliance of which, will not give rise to any enforceable right to the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp/-