Allowed

M.Dheen Lokeshwaran v. the Union Government of

Madras HC8 Sept 2014WP/7505/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct a bank to sanction an educational loan towards tuition fees. The court held that the bank must pay the college only the fee amount applicable to Government Quota students.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent Bank to pay the College the actual fee payable for persons admitted under the Government Quota category.

M.Dheen Lokeshwaran Vs the Union Government of — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

W.P. No. 7505 of 2014

¶6

M. Dheen Lokeshwaran ..Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. The Union Government of India,
rep. By its Secretary,
Finance Department,
New Delhi.
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Villivakkam Branch,
Villivakkam,
Chennai – 600 049.
3. The Principal,
St. Peter's College of Engineering
& Technology,
College Road, Avadi,
Chennai – 600 054. ..Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to sanction the Educational Loan amount of RS.1,68,000/- to the petitioner towards Tuition Fees and University Examination Fees required by the 3^rd respondent's Certificate of Estimation dated 02.12.2013 without insisting the fee bill paid for the first year.

¶9

The petitioner, who was admitted to the 3^rd respondent College during the academic year 2013-2014, for the first year of Degree Course in Mechanical Engineering, has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to sanction the educational loan amount.

¶10

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

¶11

Heard Mr.S. Kumara Devan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.D. Audikesavalu, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶12

Despite service of notice and the 3^rd respondent's name having been printed in the cause list, the 3^rd respondent College has not chosen to appear.

¶13

Mr.P.D. Audikesavalu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank pointed out that, as per the letter of the College dated 21.02.2013, the petitioner was admitted under the category "Government Quota – First Graduate". Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay only the concessional rate of fee, as per the Government Orders, since, he was allotted by the Government to the 3^rd respondent College through Single Window Counselling under the category "First Graduate". Neither the College can collect more than what is prescribed by the Government nor the Bank is obliged to pay more than the permissible amount.

¶14

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent Bank to pay to the 3^rd respondent, whatever is the fee actually payable for persons admitted under the category "Government Quota – First Graduate" within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 3^rd respondent College is directed not to demand anything more than what is payable by the persons admitted under the said quota. No costs.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nv To 1. Secretary, Finance Department, New Delhi. 2. The Branch Manager,State Bank of India, Villivakkam Branch,Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049. 3. The Principal, St. Peter's College of Engineering & Technology, College Road, Avadi, Chennai – 600 054. + 1 cc to Mr.S. Kumara Devan, Advocate sR.42652 + 1 cc to Mr.P.D. Audikesavalu, Advocate Sr.42652 W.P. No. 7505 of 2014 KS(CO) Eu 19.09.14

¶16

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

M.Dheen Lokeshwaran v. the Union Government of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Dheen Lokeshwaran v. the Union Government of

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

K.Karunakaran Vs The Sub Registrar

D.Keerthi, Vs The Secretary

Mohideen Haniff Vs The Chief Passport Officer

S.Nithyanandham Vs The District Collector

D.Selvaraj Vs The Revenue Divisional

K.R.Rohit (Minor) Vs Dr.R.G.Sukumar