Madras High CourtWP(MD)/21514/2017disposed of

M.Dineshkumar, v. The Secretary,

2017-11-22Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.11.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.21514 of 2017 and WMP(MD)No.17794 of 2017 M.Dineshkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India,New Delhi.

2. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

3. The Lead District Manager, The District,C/O, Canara Bank,Theni.

4. The Deputy General Manager, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Thalavai Street, Madurai - 625 001.

5. The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, T.Ramanathapuram Branch, T.Ramanathapuram, Usilampatti Via, Madurai District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to credit the interest subsidy eligible for his educational loan under CSIS and after reckoning with the said amount in the loan account to inform the amount payable under One Time Settlement so as to enable him to close the Loan Account in one go in the light of his representations dated 12.08.2017 and 12.10.2017.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Alagarsamy For Respondent -1 : Mr.R.Vijayarajan For Respondent -2 : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, Government Advocate For Respondents 3 to 5: Mr.Pala.Ramasamy

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to credit the interest subsidy eligible for the educational loan under CSIS and after reckoning with the said amount in the loan account to inform the amount payable under One Time Settlement so as to enable him to close the Loan Account the light of his representations dated 12.08.2017 and 12.10.2017. 2.Heard both sides.

3.By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner availed educational loan from the fifth respondent in the year 2008. Since the loan amount was not settled, the bank has blocked his mother's saving bank account. Hence, the petitioner approached the bank for one time settlement of the loan by way of representations dated 12.08.2017 and 12.10.2017. Since, there was no response from the bank, the petitioner is before this Court. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5, on instructions, submitted that the bank is inclined to consider the petitioner's representation on merits within the time stipulated by this Court.

6.Considering the limited scope of the relief sought in this writ petition, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 12.08.2017 and 12.10.2017 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as all the interested parties, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To