Madras High CourtWP(MD)/10738/2015disposed of

N.Periyakaruppan, v. The Regional Manager,

2015-09-03Honourable Mr Justice R.Subbiah2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :03.09.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P(MD).No.10738 of 2015 N.Periyakaruppan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Regional Manager, Canara Bank, Madurai.

2.The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Thumbaipatti, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. ...Respondents This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to provide Rs.2,90,000/- as Education loan to the petitioner's son Rajesh Kannan for B.E., Computer Science course within the time stipulated by this Court.

For petitioner :Mr.S.Mahalingam For R-1 :No Appearance For R-2 :Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to provide Rs.2,90,000/- as Educational loan to the petitioner's son Rajesh Kannan to continue B.E., Computer Science course within a stipulated time.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to agricultural family and he had one daughter and one son namely Rajesh Kannan. His son Rajesh Kannan is studying B.E., Computer Science(I Year) at R.V.S. College of Engineering and Technology in Coimbatore and the Institute is Government aided Institute. The petitioner belongs to denotified community. According to fees structure, to complete the four years course, the petitioner has to pay Rs.4,47,500/- and now a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- is to be paid. Hence, the petitioner approached the second respondent to gran educational loan of Rs.2,90,000/- and submitted an application in the month of February 2015. But, the said application was rejected by the second respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner expressed his willingness to repay the loan amount as per the Rules.

Subsequently, the second respondent asked the petitioner to produce income certificate. Even after producing the income certificate, the second respondent did not provide educational loan to the son of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent through the District Collector Grievance Day on 20.04.2015 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.

in person on 23.04.2015. But, till date, no steps have been taken to provide educational loan to the petitioner's son. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the Writ Petition for the above stated relief.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

4. Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court directs the petitioner to give a fresh application to the second respondent bank within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with a copy of this order and on receipt of such application, the second respondent is directed to consider the educational loan application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with I.B.A guidelines, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Writs) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar pm To 1.The Regional Manager, Canara Bank, Madurai. 2.The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Thumbaipatti,Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

+one cc to Mr.S.Mahalingam, Advocate in SR.No.52507 +one cc to Mr.C.Jawahar, Advocate in SR.No.52300 W.P(MD).No.10738 of 2015 03.09.2015 CSL/SKS-RR/14.09.2015 2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/