the purview of educational loan and which fees will not come under the purview of such loan, especially when the entire fee structure as stated above is issued by the College. The attitude of the respondent bank only shows their pedantic approach instead of looking into the issue in a pragmatic manner, more particularly, when the issue involved is in respect of educational loan sought by a poor student. This Court has time and again has repeatedly held in very many cases that the Financial Institutions should lend a helping hand to the needy students without finding some technical objections to reject the request for educational loan. The bank should always find out ways and means to extend the financial assistance to the needy student instead of looking for a reason as to how such request could be denied. After all, they are not doing any charity and on the other hand, they are only lending the loan to recover the same with interest from the student after completion of the course. Therefore, I find that the contention of the respondent Bank, in all aspects as discussed supra, are liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent Bank is directed to disburse the educational loan to the petitioner after obtaining necessary undertaking if any warranted, and other required documents from the petitioner. Such exercise shall be done by the respondent Bank within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(Co) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Iyyapanthangal RACPC Branch, Chennai – 56. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Thiruvottiyur Branch, Chennai – 19. +1cc to Mr.Dhananjeyan, Advocate SR.No.86015 +1cc to Mr.K.Sasidaran, Advocate SR.No.85967 W.P.No.16023 of 2017 MG(CO) sm:7.12.2017
