Muthukumarappan, v. The Branch Manager,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.01.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.No.29923 of 2015 Muthukumarappan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Branch Manager, IndianBank, Vikkravandi Branch, Vikkravandi Taluk, Villupuram District.

2.The Registrar, Annamalai University, Annamalai University Campus, Chidambaram Chidambaram District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to sanction the remaining amount of Rs.79,410/- for educational loan to the petitioner and further directing to sanction the entire amount of Rs.5,06,665/- to petitioner's educational loan for the academic year 2014-2018.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.J.Pazhani Karthik for R1 No appearance for R2

ORDER

The petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition seeking to direct the first respondent to sanction a further sum of Rs.79,410/- for the purpose of educational loan so as to enable him to continue his studies.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the sanction letter dated 12.12.2014 clearly speaks about the amount sanctioned. The said amount was sanctioned without security.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father is ready to give an agricultural land as security.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, by way of reply, submitted that maximum amount, as fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee, has already been sanctioned.

5.

The abovesaid contention of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-Bank per se cannot be a sole ground for not considering the application of the petitioner. If fresh application is made seeking further amount by providing sufficient security, the petitioner may not come under the scheme. However, it cannot be said that he is not entitled. It is the matter between the petitioner and the first respondent. In other words, if the rules provide for sanctioning additional amount after receiving security, then in the event of the petitioner furnishing the same, the same cannot be denied on the sole ground that what is sought for is beyond the amount that is made permissible by the Fee Fixation Committee. After all, for undergoing studies, the incidental expenses also have to be taken into consideration. 6.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a fresh application seeking additional loan by providing sufficient security. As and when such an application is made, the first respondent shall consider it as per the regulationd and guidelines. This Court has not expressed anything on merits. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar raa

To 1.The Branch Manager, IndianBank, Vikkravandi Branch, Vikkravandi Taluk, Villupuram District.

2.The Registrar, Annamalai University, Annamalai University Campus, Chidambaram Chidambaram District.

+1cc to Mr.J.Pazhani Karthik, Advocate, S.R.No.709 +1cc to Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.527 W.P.No.29923 of 2015 CA(CO) CA(25/01/2016)