IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32541 of 2008(Y)
1. P.PREMLAL, ASARIPARAMBU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BANKING OMBUDSMAN, (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.DEEPAK
For Respondent :SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :25/03/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).32541/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner applied for an educational
loan for the benefit of his son who had
secured admission to the Aircraft
Maintenance Engineering Course (AME) in the
July 2008 session. Course is a three year
‘Professional Licence Course stated to be
approved by the Director General of Civil
Aviation. The total expenses for
prosecuting the course, would be more than
6 Lakhs, as is evidenced by Ext.P2 series.
Petitioner who is a driver of a stage
carriage therefore had to seek assistance
by way of an educational loan and according
to him, he submitted an application before
the Federal Bank, Vandanam Branch,State Bank
of Travancore Vandanam Branch & The
Punjab National Bank, Alappuzha, the first
and second among them are stated to be
situated within 200 meteres from the
W.P.(C).32541/2008
2
permanent residence of the petitioner. It
seems that the petitioner was asked by
these three Banks for details and it also
seems that he approached the Bank authorities
on more than one occasion. But the loan was
not sanctioned. In these circumstances,
petitioner approached the respondent, Banking
Ombudsman with Ext.P4 complaint.
Complaint was taken on file. But ultimately
by Ext.P6, it was rejected stating that two
among the Banks are not situated near the
residence of the petitioner and the third
Bank informed the Banking Ombudsman that
since the course in relation to which
educational loan was sought for, was not a
Regular Degree/Diploma course, existing
guidelines did not permit the sanctioning
of the educational loan. Ext.P6 contains a
further statement to the effect that non
sanctioning of the loan is not a matter which
is otherwise cognizable by the Banking
Ombudsman under the Banking Ombudsman
Scheme, 2006. Ext.P6 has been challenged in
this writ petition.
W.P.(C).32541/2008
3
2. Respondent has entered appearance.
I heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel for the respondent. I
have perused the Banking Ombudsman Scheme of
2006.
3. One of the aspects which forms the
subject the matter of a complaint in terms
of clause 8(2)(c) of the scheme is the
“non-acceptance of application for loans
without furnishing valid reasons to the
applicant”. A reading of Ext.P4 complaint
in its entirety, would show that the
substratum of the allegation raised by the
petitioner is the unjustified denial of
loan sought for by the petitioner. If the
denial of such facility was with valid
reasons, the same must be furnished to the
applicant and if reasons are not afforded
to the applicant, same affords adequate
reasons to invoke the jurisdiction of the
Banking Ombudsman. In these circumstances,
I am of the view that a reconsideration of
W.P.(C).32541/2008
4
Ext.P4 at the hands of the respondent is
necessary.
4. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is set aside.
Respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4
complaint afresh. Petitioner or his
authorized representative may be heard
before orders are passed and it shall be
passed within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the
concerned Banks give any explanation to
the Banking Ombudsman, it would only be in
conformity with the principles of natural
justice that copies of such replies be given
to the applicant and he be heard on the same
before final orders are passed.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs