AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Sudhakar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner for a writ of Mandamus to direct the first Respondent to sanction the educational loan for the Petitioner''s son namely S. Harish pursuing second year B.Tech (I.T) Course at St. Michael College of Engineering and Technology, Kalayarkovil, Sivagangai District based on the Petitioner''s loan application within the stipulated time framed by this Court.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Counsel for the first Respondent and the learned Counsel for the Respondents 2 and 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
The Petitioner, a practising Advocate of this Court, approached the first Respondent Bank for Educational Loan for his son, S. Harish, who is undergoing B.Tech., (I.T) at St. Michael College of Engineering and Technology, Kalayarkovil, Sivagangai District. The Educational Loan is for a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Thousand only) for three years. The Petitioner applied for the loan in the prescribed format and the Bank, however, failed to consider the same for one or other reason. The application has not been rejected. Hence, the writ petition has been filed.
The Chairman and the Principal of St. Michael College of Engineering and Technology, Kalayarkovil, Sivagangai District, were added as Respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition and have filed a counter affidavit.
Mr. R. Pandivel, learned Counsel for the first Respondent Bank, on instructions, submits that the student discontinued his studies for the academic years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 and his academic record does not show that he is a meritorious student. Therefore, the Bank has an apprehension to grant loan.
The College has filed an affidavit stating that the student has resumed his course of study and he is a bona fide student of their College.
The Petitioner states that the reason for seeking loan is on account of financial crisis consequent to the death of his daughter who was studying abroad and died in an accident while in India. He further states that with great difficulty, he could pay the fee for his son only for the first year and due to the financial crisis that he suffered, he could not pay for the second year and therefore, his son had to discontinue his studies.
As stated earlier, the Petitioner pleads that his family was in very great distress for sometime in the year 2009 and in January'' 2010, the daughter of the Petitioner suffered a serious accident and died in the month of September'' 2010 after prolonged treatment. The Petitioner incurred enormous expenses by treating the injured daughter who subsequently succumbed to the injuries. This resulted in great financial crisis to the Petitioner, the father of the student.
Insofar as the academic pursuit is concerned, it is stated that the Petitioner''s son is serious in pursuing the course and has shown great resilience by getting re-admitted to the College so as to continue his studies inspite of the family calamity as stated above.
On this premise, the Petitioner seeks Educational Loan referring to the circular of the Reserve Bank of India and the Indian Bankers'' Association guidelines wherein the Banks have been requested to grant loan without security up to a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) to aspiring students.
This Court considered the plea of the Petitioner factually and on equity in view of the benevolent scheme to provide Educational Loan. The claim of the Petitioner seeking Educational Loan for his son deserves to be considered as the Petitioner''s son has shown seriousness in pursuing the course inspite of discontinuing the same for two years due to family circumstances as stated above. This amply proves his perseverance to continue his education.
It is not that in every case, Bank loan should be granted only to exemplary and meritorious student ignoring the plight of the students who are otherwise disabled in performing well due to various circumstances or for that matter social status viz., family distress due to the death or accident, social backwardness, financial bankruptcy, loss of earning member, etc. The education is not the prerogative of the haves and denied to the have nots. The financial crisis seems to be the main issue that is standing in the way of the Petitioner''s son''s education. It will be travesty of justice if want of money is a reason to discontinue the education. The State sensing such a plight across the country has formulated the Model Educational Loan Scheme. There may be many students who are socially and economically backward and may not be able to pay for their education. To fill in this wide gap, the State has implemented this Scheme. It is a benevolent and society conscious measure to further the state policy to promote education.
When the Petitioner''s son shows interest in pursuing the course and has endured all odds to pursue it, he mirrors the legendary Robert Bruce.
In view of the above and considering the fact that No. security is required for loans below a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs only) and the equity that favours the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to direct the first Respondent Bank to consider the Petitioner''s case sympathetically taking note of the financial crisis faced by the Petitioner consequent to the accident and death of his daughter. The need to pay hefty fees charged by the Private Educational Institutions like the Respondents 2 and 3 adds to the Petitioner''s owes. The State, however, has come to their rescue to appoint a Commission to regulate the fee structure. The Special Committee has recommended the fee structure that has to be charged by the second Respondent Institution. To that extent, the first Respondent Bank can consider the claim of the Petitioner and grant Educational Loan.
For the above stated reasons, the first Respondent Bank is directed to consider and grant Educational Loan to the Petitioner''s son as prescribed by the Special Committee namely Justice N.V. Balasubramanian Committee on or before 30.08.2011.
The writ petition is ordered as above. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No. costs.