BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28/09/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD).No.11405 of 2010 & W.P.(MD).No.11406 of 2010 & M.P.(MD).No.1 & 1 of 2010 Minor Rajan Babu rep. by mother Buvaneshwari No.2/555, Jaiyangonndanilai, Malakottai, Tirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. .. Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.11405/2010 Minor N.Ragul rep by Father K.Natarajan, No.2/27, Jaiyangonndanilai, Malakottai, Tirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. .. Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.11406/2010 Vs. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Eriyur Branch, Sivagangai District. .. Respondent in both the writ petitions PRAYER Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to avail education loan for a sum of Rs.5,39,750/- to the petitioners on the base of the application dated 10.08.2010. !For Petitioner ...Mr.U.Bismillahkhan ^For Respondents...Mr.Ananth C. Rajesh :ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners seek for a direction to
the respondent to grant educational loan for a sum of Rs.5,39,750/- to each of
the petitioners on the basis of their application dated 10.08.2010.
3. The petitioners having completed XII standard (Plus-two) wanted to join
B.E. course and they made applications. The petitioners got admission in the
Hindustan Institute of Technology & Science which is deemed to be an University
under Section 3 of the UGC Act. As per the expenditure certificate issued by the
said University, dated 30.07.2010, fees prescribed for each year was indicated.
For the first year it is Rs.1,32,500/- and for the second, third and the fourth
year it was Rs.1,14,000/- for each year. Apart from this, there is also hostel
fees.
4. Based on these fees schedule, the petitioners made application to the
respondent bank seeking for loan under ETL scheme. Initially, the Bank by a
communication dated 23.08.2010 the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.11406 of 2010 was
informed that the advances to be made by the bank per segment under the ELT
limit was Rs.2,00,000/- for the whole course. If the petitioners are satisfied
with those terms and conditions, the bank was willing to grant the loan provided
they execute necessary documents. By another communication dated 26.08.2010
addressed to the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.11405 of 2010 was similarly informed.
5. Not satisfied with the offer made by the bank, the writ petitioners
have come up with these writ petitions seeking for a direction to the respondent
bank to pay the entire amount of fees as stipulated in the expenditure
certificate.
6. Notice was directed to serve on the counsel appearing for the Bank.
Accordingly, Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh, learned counsel appeared for the bank.
7. Though the counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the very
purpose of the ETL scheme was to help the boys belonging to the poor communities
to complete their courses and pay back the loan. But, what was offered by the
bank was only a fraction of the amount to be incurred as expenditure for
studying in the College. Therefore, the learned counsel stated that the bank
must be directed to pay the loan amount as per the fees schedule.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent bank produced a communication
from the bank prescribing the educational fee structure provided by the
Government of Tamil Nadu. The said structure was prescribed by a committee
appointed by the State Government headed by Justice N.V.Balasubramaniam.
Further, it was stated that the bank is advancing the loan as per the fee
structure prescribed by the over cited committee appointed by the State
Government and not what the colleges are charging for each year. As per the
recommendation made by the Committee maximum fee payable for B.E. Course per
year was Rs.32,500/- for non accredited course and in case of NBA accredited is
available then it is Rs.40,000/-. Therefore the bank was still willing to honour
the request of the petitioners and advance the loans provided they were willing
to receive the loans prescribed.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner insisted for a direction from
this Court to the bank to give the loans to the petitioners as per the
expenditure certificate issued by the deemed university.
10. It must be noted that the bank can only sanction loan as per the terms
and conditions of the fees recommended by the committee appointed by the State
Government and not as per the desires of the petitioners.
11. In the light of the above, there is no case made out by the
petitioners to entertain the writ petitions. Accordingly, both the writ
petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed. No costs.
jikr
To
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Eriyur Branch,
Sivagangai District.