← Library
Madras High CourtWP/18952/2010disposed of

K.Thirunavukarasu, v. The Branch Manager,

2016-10-21Honourable Mr Justice R. Suresh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.10.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.No.18952 of 2010 K.Thirunavukarasu

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Branch Manager State Bank of India Kullanchavadi Cuddalore 600 503

...Respondent

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the sole respondent to sanction the entire amount of educational loan quoted as per the estimation slip of the petitioners college with reference to the application dated 12.11.2008 to the respondent Bank herein with cost of Rs.5000/- as legal charges. For Petitioner : Ms.V.Preetha For Respondent : Mr.P.D.Audikesavalu

O R D E R

The prayer in the writ petition is for mandamus directing the respondent to sanction the entire amount of educational loan quoted as per the estimation slip of the petitioner's college with reference to the application dated 12.11.2008 to the respondent Bank herein with cost of Rs.5,000/- as legal charges.

2. Heard both sides.

3.The petitioner has come out with the present writ petition for a direction to the respondent Bank for sanctioning of education loan for his diploma course in teacher education for the year 2008. Diploma course of two years duration would have been completed by the petitioner in the year 2010 itself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would submit that by communication dated 08.11.2011 addressed by the respondent Bank, the petitioner was requested to produce certain documents such as proof of payment of fees paid to the college for the academic year 2008-2010, proof of borrowing of money for effective payment, successful course completion certificate and other required document as per annexure enclosed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would further submit that on their part they have acted upon on the application of the petitioner and hence, there was no fault on the part of the bank. Even according to the communication dated 08.11.2011 of the respondent Bank, the Bank wanted to reimburse the said amount by way of loan which the petitioner has already paid to the institution.

5. In view of the aforesaid communications of the respondent Bank and since the course itself was over by 2010, itself no further direction is required at this juncture to the respondent Bank to consider the application of the petitioner. If the petitioner has already availed the loan from the respondent Bank pursuant to the said communication dated 08.11.2011, the petitioner's grievance would have been addressed and if there is no such amount was availed by the petitioner by way of loan, the petitioner can have no grievance at this juncture.

6. Hence, recording the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Bank and taking note of the communication of the respondent bank dated 08.11.2011, this writ petition is disposed of without any direction. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kullanchavadi, Cuddalore 600 503.

+1cc to M/S.P.D.Audikesavalu, Advocate Sr.60948 W.P.No.18952 of 2010 nr[co] srg 05/12/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/