1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.1987 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 N.Veluthai : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Theni District. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Tuticorin-2. 3.The District Lead Bank Manager, Canara Bank Lead Bank Office, No.365, A-D, Madurai Road, Theni 625 531. 4.The Branch Manager, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Vallalnathi Branch Kandamanur Aundipatti Taluk, Theni District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to disburse the educational loan to the petitioner's son M.Selveeswaran, S/o.Murugesan to pursue his 3 year Electrical Electronic Engineering at Erode Institute of Chemical Technology Polytechnic College, for the period from 2010 to 2013 within a reasonable time. For Petitioner :Mr.K.Appadurai For R2 to R4 :Mr.Pala.Ramasamy O R D E R ********** Mr.Pala.Ramasamy, learned standing counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4. 2. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the fourth respondent to sanction educational loan so as to enable his son to complete his 3 year Electrical Electronic Engineering at Erode Institute of Chemical Technology Polytechnic College. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The son of the petitioner by name Selveeswaran is now undergoing the course in Electrical Electronic Engineering at Erode Institute of Chemical Technology Polytechnic College. Since he was not having sufficient amount to pay the fees and other charges, the petitioner appears to have approached the third respondent for financial assistants. The third respondent directed the petitioner to approach the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner though an application was submitted before the fourth respondent, there was no follow up action and as such, he was constrained to file this writ petition. 4. The learned standing counsel for the Bank on instructions submits that the petitioner has not submitted any application in the prescribed format and in case any such application is filed, the same would be considered by the Bank in accordance with the relevant scheme. 5. Though the petitioner, in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, contended that he has made an application before the fourth respondent, there is nothing on record to show that any such application was submitted. The Bank has now agreed to consider the application in accordance with the Revised Model Educational Loan Scheme. Therefore, I am of the view that liberty should be given to the petitioner to approach the fourth respondent. 6. Accordingly, the fourth respondent is directed to provide the prescribed application form, so as to enable the petitioner to submit the application in the said prescribed form along with the required documents. In the event of submitting any such application within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the fourth respondent as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three weeks thereafter. It is made clear that the approach of the fourth respondent should be a positive one and there should not be any attempt to reject the loan application on the ground of technicalities. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Rj2 Sd/- Deputy Registrar[W] /True Copy/ To Assistant Registrar 1.The District Collector, Theni District. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Tuticorin-2. 3.The District Lead Bank Manager, Canara Bank Lead Bank Office, No.365, A-D, Madurai Road, Theni 625 531. 4.The Branch Manager, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Vallalnathi Branch Kandamanur Aundipatti Taluk, Theni District. W.P.(MD)No.1987 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 2P/5C DATED:22.02.2011 RPB 24.02.2011[I.T.] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/