Disposed

V.Srinivasan, v. The General Manager

Madras HC9 Jul 2018WP/12831/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed a State Bank of India branch to consider a petition for an educational loan within two weeks. The court found the applicant's daughter prima facie eligible but noted respondent hesitation, directing submission of further documents. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent to consider the educational loan application within two weeks after receipt of specified documents.

V.Srinivasan, Vs The General Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.07.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

W.P.No.12831 of 2018

V.Srinivasan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, 16, Rajaji Salai, Fort Glacis, Fort St.George, Chennai – 1. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Thirukkuvalai Branch, Thirukkuvalai – 610 204. .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to sanction educational loan to the petitioner's daughter S.Vennila.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh Babu for M/s.M.Balaji

¶11

For Respondents: Ms.S.R.Sumathy (R2)

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to sanction educational loan for his daughter S.Vennila for the academic year 2017-18.

¶13

2.The petitioner has four daughter and his 4^th daughter S.Vennila has passed her Higher Secondary examination in March 2017 and secured 914 marks with 76%. The following is her subjectwise marks out of 1200:

¶14

The petitioner's daughter has joined Bachelor of Physiotherapy course in Santhosh College of Physiotherapy, Madurai through counselling in Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai. As she required huge amount of Rs.6,05,800/- for her 4 ½ years course,

¶15

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

¶16

she approached the 2^nd respondent Bank on 25.01.2018 with all the necessary documents, requesting for educational loan. As no response is forthcoming, her father has come to this Court by filing this Writ Petition. The educational loan scheme also clearly shows that every student, who is unable to meet out her/his tuition fees and other educational expenses, can avail the educational loan. Therefore, a direction be issued to the 2^nd respondent to sanction educational loan to the petitioner's daughter.

¶17

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the application has been submitted for educational loan, the respondent also had given a reply through e-mail showing that the petitioner's daughter is prima facie eligible to get benefits of the loan. However, till date they are hesitating to release the educational loan. In view of the delay, the petitioner's daughter is finding it difficult to continue the Bachelor of Physiotherapy course in Santhosh College of Physiotherapy, Madurai.

¶18

4.The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submitted that as the petitioner's daughter was already found prima facie eligible for getting the benefit of educational loan, her application would be duly considered.

¶19

5.In view of the above submission, the petitioner and her daughter S.Vennila is hereby directed to approach the 2^nd respondent with her 10^th , 12^th Certificates, Admission Card given at the time of granting admission to the course of Bachelor of Physiotherapy in Santhosh College of Physiotherapy, Madurai, Aadhar Card, documents relating to collateral security, Bonafide Certificate issued by Santhosh College of Physiotherapy, Madurai, along with a copy of this order. On receipt of the above, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner's daughter for sanction of educational loan within a period of two weeks.

¶20

6.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

1.The General Manager,
Reserve Bank of India,
16, Rajaji Salai, Fort Glacis,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 1.
2.The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Thirukkuvalai Branch,
Thirukkuvalai – 610 204.
+1 CC to Mr.M. Balaji, Advocate sr 44476.
+1 CC to Ms.S.R. Sumathy, Advocate sr 44690.
W.P.No.12831 of 2018
KJI(CO)
SP(12/07/2018)

¶26

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

V.Srinivasan, v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Srinivasan, v. The General 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

D.Pradeep, Vs The Authorized Officer

K.M. Mahendiravarman, Vs Thiru. Elangovan

C.Velayudham Vs Mrs. K. Nalina

S. Neelavathi Vs District Magistrate Cum

Annadurai, Vs The District Revenue Officer

S.Rajendran Vs The Collector, Chennai