Disposed

Prasannakumari v. Union of India

Kerala HC20 Sept 2016WP(C)/26163/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of writ petitions challenging recovery proceedings against petitioners for educational loan default. Petitioners sought interest subsidy. Court directed petitioners to approach the bank for subsidy and kept recovery proceedings in abeyance for two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioners to submit representation to bank within two weeks; bank directed to decide within two months; revenue recovery proceedings kept in abeyance.

Prasannakumari Vs Union of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/29TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 26163 of 2016 (U) ---------------------------PETITIONER(S): -------------

¶6

PRASANNAKUMARI MUDIYIL PUTHENVEDU, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.BINU PAUL

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. UNION OF INDIA

¶10

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, NEW DELHI- 110 001

¶11

2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA KALOOR, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI- 682 018

¶12

3. CANARA BANK

¶13

HEAD OFFICE, 112 J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 002

¶14

4. BANK OF INDIA REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST,- 683 542

¶15

5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶16

CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM- 682 030

¶17

6. TAHSILDAR (RR) PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN- 683 542

¶18

R1 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASG R3 BY SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK R4 BY SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY, SC, BANK OF INDIA R5 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

SRI.T.K.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-09-2016 ALONG WITH WPC 29679/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No. 26163 of 2016 (U)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEED DATED 30-06-2010 OF THE SUB REGISTRARS OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA EXHIBIT P2: RATION CARD BPL CARD DATED 24-12-2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE THALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION DATED NIL DOWNLOADED FROM INTERNET EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION LETTER DATED 18-07-2016 FILED BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-06-2016 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SPEECH DELIVERED BY THE THEN FINANCE MINISTER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BEFORE THE LOK SABHA ON 17-12-2013

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) Nos.26163 & 29679 of 2016

¶32

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

These writ petitions are intrinsically connected and the

¶35

issues are with respect to the educational loan provided to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 29679/16. Therefore, they are heard together and I propose to pass a common judgment. W.P.(C) No.26163/2016 is filed by the first petitioner's mother in the other writ petition, who is a guarantor alleging that, the interest subsidy provided to the Bank loan are not extended to the first petitioner. In W.P.(C)No. 26979/2016 the challenge is against the recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act to recover the educational loan provided to the petitioners therein. Availing of the bank loan, default in paying the same and the entitlement of the subsidy are not at all disputed. In order to have a practical and viable solution to settle the issue I think it is only appropriate that petitioners can be relegated to the authority of the 4^th respondent Bank.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶37

W.P.(C) Nos.26163 & 29679 of 2016

¶38

¶39

learned counsel for the respective Bank.

¶40

Petitioners will be at liberty to approach the Bank by filing suitable representation claiming subsidy towards educational loan and deliberate with the Bank with respect to the revival of the educational loan and other allied matters.

¶41

Therefore, there will be a direction to the petitioners to submit a representation to the 4^th respondent Bank, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the 4^th respondent Bank is directed to take a decision on the same, after having due deliberation with the petitioners in these writ petitions and take a decision on the same, in accordance with law within, two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time revenue recovery proceedings initiated under Sections 7 and 34 against the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance.

¶42

Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

SHAJI P. CHALY,JUDGE

¶45

dlk/20/9/

Prasannakumari v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasannakumari v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Johnson Vs State of Kerala

N.Madhusoodaran Vs Mr.Antony Chacko, the Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Sunil.R Vs Union of India

Joann Sabu Vs the State of Kerala

Geetha Vs the Employees State Insurance Corporation

P.T. Praksh Babu Vs Director of Factories & Boilers