BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18/11/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.10143 of 2009 A.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Union of India rep. by Ministry of Finance Through Finance Secretary Todhi Road, New Delhi 2. The Assistant General Manager State Bank of India Regional Ofice (Rural Development-VI) Trichy, Trichy District 3. The Branch Manager State Bank of India Bazaar Branch (7852) 52, Porthamaraikulam Road Kumbakonam ... Respondents This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the educatinoal loan to the petitioner's son by considering the petitioner's representation dated 28.9.2009. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Bharathidasan ^For Respondents ... Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan Additional Solicitor General(R1) Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh for R3 :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct
the respondents to disburse the educatinoal loan to the petitioner’s son, by
considering the petitioner’s representation, dated 28.9.2009.
2. The petitioner had stated that his son, K.Somasundara, had got
admission in V.S.M.Aerospace Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Training School,
Bangalore, to undergo the course A.M.E.& AM.Ae.SI (equivalent to B.E.
Aeronautical Engineering Degree). After he was admitted in the said course, the
petitioner had approached the third respondent Bank requesting for an
educational loan of Rs.5,00,000/-, by his application, dated 15.7.2009.
3. The petitioner has further stated that the course in which the
petitioner’s son had been admitted has been approved and it has also been duly
recognised by the Central Government and therefore, the Central Government
Educatinoal Loan Scheme would apply.
4. The petitioner had also submitted that the documents required by the
second respondent had been furnished. After the documents had been furnished,
the authorities of the third respondent Bank had orally stated that the amount
of Rs.3,95,000/- would be sanctioned, as educatinoal loan, to the petitioner’s
son. They had also requested the petitioner to open an account in the third
respondent Bank. Based on the request made by the authorities of the third
respondent Bank, the petitioner had also opened an account. Thereafter, the
third respondent had requested the petitioner to furnish the details of
students, who were getting the educational loan. Pursuant to the said request,
the petitioner had furnished all the necessary details to the third respondent.
However, the loan, as promised by the third respondent, had not been sanctioned.
In such circumstances, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the
present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it
has been stated that the petitioner had not submitted any application either, on
15.7.2009, or on any other later date. It has also been stated that the
petitioner had not produced valid documents to show that V.S.M.Aerospace
Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Training School, Bangalore, has been recognised
by the Central Government. Further, the relevant documents, including the
necessary certificates, had not been furnished by the petitioner, as requested
by the third respondent. Therefore, there was no promise or assurance made by
the authorities of the third respondent Bank that the petitioner’s son would be
granted the educatinoal loan, as requested by the petitioner.
6. It has also been stated that the petitioner is only undergoing training
for the examination of Associate Member of Aeronautical Society of India
(AM.A.e.SI). The said course is not a professional course giving a degree or
status to the petitioner’s son. It cannot be used as a degree for his future
professional carrier. The Institute offering the course has not been recognised
by the Director General of Technical Education, Government of India. The said
course is not in the approved list of courses, as contained in the Master
Circular No.NBG/PBU/P STUDENT/1/2009-10, dated 1.4.2009, issued by the third
respondent Bank. In such circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits
and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the
decision of this Court, dated 12.10.2009, in W.A.No.144 of 2009 (S.R.HARISH BABU
Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS) in support of his
contentions. In the said order, it has been pointed out that when Aeronautical
Engineering has been accepted as a course for the grant of the loan facility to
the student to pursue the course, the respondent Bank cannot deny such a loan to
the student, under the available educational loan scheme.
8. There is no representation on behalf of the third respondent.
Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, Additional Solicitor General the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the first respondent had admitted that Aeronautical Engineering
course pursued by the petitioner’s son has been duly recognised and therefore,
the petitioner’s son would be eligible for the grant of the educational loan, as
requested by the petitioner, if he is otherwise qualified for the same.
9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for
the petitioner, as well as the first and the third respondents and in view of
the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and on
a perusal of the documents available, this Court is of the considered view that
the petitioner has shown sufficient reasons for this Court to direct the third
respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for the granting of the
educational loan to the petitioner’s son, K.Somasundara, who is said to be
pursuing an Aeronautical Engineering course in V.S.M.Aerospace Aircraft
Maintenance Engineers Training School, Bangalore, and to grant him the necessary
loan, as per the guidelines issued by the Central Government and the Reserve
Bank of India for the grant of educational loan, unless there are other legal
impediments for the granting of the said loan. It is open to the third
respondent to require the petitioner and his son to produce the necessary
documents for the sanctioning of the educational loan and to fulfil the other
norms, as per the applicable guidelines.
10. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the second and the third
respondents to reject the request of the petitioner, in limini, without
considering the application of the petitioner, in detail. Once it has been
stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent that
the course, which is being pursued by the petitioner’s son, is a recognised
course, the third respondent cannot deny granting of the educatinoal loan on the
ground that the petitioner has not shown that the said course is a recognised
one. When other similarly placed students have been granted the educational
loan, there is no proper reason shown as to why the request of the petitioner
had been rejected by the third respondent. In such circumstances and in view of
the orders passed by this Court, in its order, dated 12.10.2009, in W.A.No.144
OF 2009 (S.R.HARISH BABU Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS), the third respondent is directed to consider the claim of the
petitioner for the grant of the educational loan and to pass appropriate orders,
as expeditiously as possible, if the petitioner is otherwise found to be
eligible for the said loan.
11. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009 is closed.
lan
To:
1.The Finance Secretary,
Ministry of Finance
The Union of India
Todhi Road, New Delhi.
2.The Assistant General Manager
State Bank of India
Regional Ofice (Rural Development-VI)
Trichy, Trichy District
3.The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Bazaar Branch (7852)
52, Porthamaraikulam Road
Kumbakonam