AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction to disburse the educational loan to the petitioner''s son Manojkumar for carrying on his academic activities by undergoing the study of B.E.(Computer Science) Sri Guru Institute of Technology, Varathaiyangarpalayam, Coimbatore District for the academic year 2011-2015. The petitioner sent a representation, dated 10.08.2011 seeking for educational loan from the respondent State Bank of India, Vangal Branch, Karur District and within a week, he filed the present writ petition seeking for direction to disburse the loan.
On notice from this Court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 10.09.2011. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the bank is received the letter dated 11.08.2011 from the petitioner''s son, no other particulars were furnished and the application for loan was not submitted in terms of the required form. Therefore, they are unable to process the petitioner''s request. Apart from that in the counter affidavit, it is stated that in paragraph 6, the outstanding loan standing in the name of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.3,50,690/- and since the petitioner is not willing to repay the amount, it will be difficult for the bank to process the loan application, if any application to be submitted by his son. However, this Court is not willing to go into the said issue at this juncture.
It is suffice to state that it was the petitioner makes a proper application form with all necessary records required to be enclosed along with the same. The respondents shall process the same, if eligible, sanction the loan in terms of the scheme and if not eligible, the said information can also be furnished by way of a communication to the petitioner and it is time enough for the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law. Then only at that stage, the question of eligibility of the petitioner will be gone into and not even before the consideration of the loan application if any to be submitted by the petitioner.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon a judgment of this Court in G.Dhivya Vs.The Branch Manager, Canara Bank and others reported in 2011 (1) CWC 843 that the loan application of the co-obligation cannot be a relevant factor and that the bank should not confuse itself with the loan availed by the father for his business purpose with reference to the loan to be availed by his son or daughter for the educational loan. However, this Court do not rely upon this judgment since no principle of law was laid down on this issue. It must be noted that though the scheme for grant of educational loan is considered by the Government of India and the banks were encouraged to grant such loan, such loans could be sanctioned only in terms of scheme framed by the bank and no writ petition will lie to enforce the loan application contrary to the scheme framed by any bank.
With the above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to approach the bank along with proper application form. No costs.