IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16611 of 2010(B)
1. ASWATHY GOPALAKRISHANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SBT,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.SATHISH NINAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :02/07/2010
O R D E R
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