Dismissed

Somin Abraham v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC9 Mar 2017WP(C)/1827/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the refusal of State Bank of India to sanction an educational loan for the petitioner to pursue engineering studies in Tamil Nadu. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility criteria as her admission was under a management quota without a recognized entrance test.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for an educational loan.

Somin Abraham Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/18TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1827 of 2017 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

SOMIN ABRAHAM,

¶8

AGED 17 YEARS,D/O SOMIN ABRAHAM,POTHENTHAYIL, KALAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER RENNY ABRAHAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, KALAVOOR BRANCH, KALAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶12

2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH,POST BOX NO.3065, KOCHI-682 018, REP. THE GENERAL MANAGER.

¶13

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR. SC) SMT.S.AMBILY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-02-2017 THE COURT ON 09-03-2017, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

msv/

¶16

WP(C).No. 1827 of 2017 (C)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 07.09.2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY CERTIFICATE OF MARKS OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER IN HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WEB PAGE IN THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE TO THE CONSORTIUM OF COLLEGES SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE RANK ALLOTTED TO HER

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DIVORCE PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA OP. NO.171/2008

¶23

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶24

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MORNING EDUCATION LOAN SCHEME FRAMED BY THE IBA AND APPROVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶25

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED EDUCATIONAL LOAN SCHEME 2011 FRAMED BY THE IBA AND APPROVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶26

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED EDUCATIONAL LOAN SCHEME 2015 FRAMED BY THE IBA AND APPROVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶33

W.P.(C). No.1827 of 2017

¶34

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2017

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

This writ petition relates to refusal of the 1^st respondent

¶37

bank to extend educational loan to the petitioner to pursue her engineering studies in the State of Tamil Nadu.

¶38

Brief facts required for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows; petitioner on securing 88% marks in her examination got admission for B.E. (Bio Medical) course in an AICTE approved Engineering College in Tamil Nadu and the college is affiliated to the Awna University, Chennai. According to the petitioner, petitioner got admission to the Engineering course on merit. Petitioner belongs to a poor family (BPL category) and is being taken care of by her divorcee mother. The elder sister of the petitioner is a student pursuing B.Sc Nursing course. Faced with adverse financial circumstances, petitioner and her mother applied for educational loan of Rs.4 lakhs. However, the same was rejected by the 1^st respondent as per Ext.P5 letter on the

¶39

W.P.(C). No.1827 of 2017

¶40

¶41

ground; (1) Petitioner secured admission for the course without any entrance test (2) Order of the court dissolving her parents marriage was not produced. (3) Details of the consumer loan availed by co-applicant i.e., her mother is not produced.

¶42

Thereafter, petitioner submitted Ext.P4 decree of divorce and requested the 1^st respondent to re-consider the decision, in accordance with the guidelines governing the grant of educational loan, which do not insist that the admission should be through entrance test, or that the co-applicant should not have any liability due to a bank. But in spite of all the earnest efforts, 1^st respondent refused to sanction the loan stating reasons Nos.1 and 3 mentioned above, and in Ext.P5 letter. The classes for the 2^nd semester started and due to the non-payment of the fees for the said semester, petitioner is not able to attend the class so far. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to secure the relief sought for in the writ petition.

¶43

First respondent filed a statement and among other

¶44

W.P.(C). No.1827 of 2017

¶45

¶46

contentions, it is stated that, the application submitted by the petitioner and her mother was considered and it is found that petitioner has applied for an educational loan to pursue her studies in an engineering college in Tamil Nadu. On verification, it is seen that, petitioner has obtained admission to the college under management quota and not through any merit based selection process/entrance test. As per the revised educational loan scheme, eligibility criteria for educational loan is that, the students should have secured admission to a higher education course in a recognized institution in India or abroad through entrance test or merit based selection process after completion of the HSC (10+2 or equivalent). That apart it is submitted, from Ext.P1 it is clear, petitioner secured admission in the institute under management quota. Ext.P3, is only an online receipt showing that petitioner had undergone some selection process before getting admission. However, the said selection process cannot be treated as valid or merit based unless and until it is conducted by any approved regulatory bodies, which is

¶47

W.P.(C). No.1827 of 2017

¶48

¶49

categorically held by a Division Bench of this court in Arya v. Reserve Bank of India [2015(4) KLT 478]. Therefore, it is the contention of the 1^st respondent that, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as sought for in the writ petition.

¶50

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and perused the documents and pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶51

Respective counsel put forth their arguments in accordance with their respective pleadings put forth before this court. The question to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief on the basis of the notification issued by the 1^st respondent for providing educational loan to the students. Both sides relied on the proposition of law laid down by this court in the aforequoted judgment in ' Arya' .

¶52

I have gone through the said judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court and what could be gathered is that, in order to make eligible a student to secure educational loan, the admission should have been secured by

¶53

W.P.(C). No.1827 of 2017

¶54

¶55

securing marks as stipulated in the eligibility criteria and securing admission in accordance with the stipulations contained in the notification issued by the banks. One thing is clearly discernible from the Division Bench judgment, which has considered this question elaborately, the admission should have been secured strictly in accordance with the eligibility criteria prescribed under the appropriate notification issued by the banks. Learned senior counsel for 1^st respondent bank has invited my attention to paragraph 11 onwards of the judgment wherein the said question was considered.

¶56

From the discussion it is evident that, so far as the admission to management quota is concerned, admission secured by the student to a course outside the State of Kerala was treated to be admission under the management quota except admission through entrance test like C.A.T, M.A.T, GATE, IIT. So also All India Medical and Engineering Tests, N.I.I.T or any common entrance test conducted by Government of India or approved regulatory bodies.

¶57

W.P.(C). No.1827 of 2017

¶58

¶59

Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel for the 1^st respondent bank, Ext.P3 online details provided by the petitioner is not a conclusive document at all to show that, the admission was secured in accordance with the stipulations contained under clause 4.2 of Ext.P5 guidelines/model scheme issued for providing educational loan to the needy. I have gone through Ext.P3, and it is not at all evident that the petitioner has undergone a common entrance test as is stipulated under the notification. Therefore, it cannot be said that, 1^st respondent has acted illegally in considering the loan application of the petitioner. I have also gone through clause 4.1 of Ext.P7 revised model scheme wherein it is stipulated that, the admission should have been secured to a higher education course in recognized institutions in India or abroad through entrance test/merit based selection process after completion of HSC. However, entrance test or selection purely based on marks obtained in qualifying examination may not be the criterion for admission to some of the postgraduate courses or research

¶60

W.P.(C). No.1827 of 2017

¶61

¶62

programmes. In such cases, banks will have to adopt appropriate criteria based on employability and reputation of the institution concerned.

¶63

Taking note of the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the considered opinion that, stipulations and criteria are prescribed to extend the educational loan to needy. In order to identify whether the student will complete the course satisfactorily, to secure employment, and the loan will be repaid, the criteria provided is to be strictly followed by the bank, since no other security is insisted upon for releasing the loan.

¶64

On a compendious consideration of the facts, provisions of the scheme and the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, there are no circumstances established by the petitioner in order to enable this court to exercise the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there being no illegality, arbitrariness, unfairness or malafides in the rejection of the application by the 1^st respondent. Moreover, neither the

¶65

W.P.(C). No.1827 of 2017

¶66

¶67

schemes referred to above nor the stipulations and criteria prescribed under the schemes are under challenge in this writ petition. Looking at any angle, petitioner is not entitled to get any reliefs as sought for in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, however, I make it clear that, if the petitioner is able to satisfy the requirements as per the norms and guidelines provided, the bank will be at liberty to look into the same and take a decision in accordance with law.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

smv 03.03.2017

Somin Abraham v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somin Abraham v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Francina Vs the District Collector

Sri.Ananthasayanam K Vs the Divisional Railway Manager

G.Somarajan Vs the State of Kerala

Sheeja Thomas Vs Sri K Premanadan

Varghese Jose Vs State of Kerala

Ali.K.K Vs the Union of India