Allowed

Godwin, v. the Branch Manager

Madras HC22 Apr 2013WP(MD)/1177/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed a bank's order rejecting an educational loan. The court directed the bank to reconsider the application under Revised Guidelines that eliminate discrimination against management quota students and do not prescribe cut-off marks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 14.12.2012 set aside and matter remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration of the loan application within 15 days.

Godwin, Vs the Branch Manager — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.04.2013 CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION (MD) No.1177 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013

¶6

Godwin .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Attoor Branch, Kanniyakumari District - 629 191. .. Respondent

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the Respondent dated 14.12.2012 and quash the same and consequently to direct the Respondent to provide the education loan to the Petitioner under Model Education Loan Scheme 2012 and other norms prescribed by the Union of India.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arun Alias Arunachalam

¶11

For Respondent : No appearance

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The application submitted by the petitioner for educational loan was rejected by the Indian Overseas Bank on the ground that the admission was under the Management Quota and he secured only less marks than the prescribed cut of marks.

¶14

The petitioner got admission for the B.E. Decree Course in Bethlahem Institute of Engineering, Karungal, Kanyakumari District. Since he hails from a very poor family, it was very difficult to pay the fees. This made the petitioner to submit an application before the respondent bank for educational loan. The application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has scored marks less than 60% in his Higher Secondary Examination and the admission was under the Management Quota. It is the said order which is challenged in this writ petition.

¶15

The Indian Banks Association has framed revised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ guidelines for the purpose of giving educational loan. The Government of India received several complaints from the parents regarding the rejection of the applications from the

¶16

¶17

students who were admitted under the Management Quota. The Indian Banks Association therefore framed the revised guidelines for granting educational loan. In the said revised guidelines, there is no discrimination between Management Quota and the Government Quota.

¶18

There is nothing on record to indicate that the Revised Guidelines has prescribed cut of marks for giving educational loan. The impugned order does not contain any reference about the corresponding provisions under the Revised Educational Loan Scheme with regard to cut of marks. Therefore, I am of the view that the bank was not correct in rejecting the loan application.

¶19

In the result, the impugned order dated 14.12.2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent is directed to consider the loan application of the petitioner in accordance with the Revised Guidelines framed by the Indian Banks Association and in the light of the above observation. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013 is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Deputy Registrar /True Copy/

¶23

Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Attoor Branch, Kanniyakumari District - 629 191.

¶26

+1cc to Mr. Arun @ Arunachalam, Advocate, Sr.No. 22911

¶27

¶28

MM/06.05.2013/2p/3c/

¶29

WRIT PETITION (MD) No.1177 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Godwin, v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Godwin, v. the Branch Manager

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

S.Arul Vs the District Collector

Pandi, Vs the District Collector

M. Selvaprasanth, Vs the General Manager

M. Mahaboob Ali, Vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

G. Gunasekaran, Vs the Assistant Engineer

S.R.S. Dhanabalan, Vs the Chief General Manager