Disposed

M.Rajendran, v. The Regional Manager

Madras HC6 Mar 2018WP/353/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the second respondent bank to consider the petitioner's application for an educational loan for his son within four weeks, after affording him an opportunity of a personal hearing, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's loan application and pass appropriate orders within four weeks after affording a personal hearing.

M.Rajendran, Vs The Regional Manager — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.03.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.No.353 of 2018

¶6

M.Rajendran ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs
1.The Regional Manager,
Oriental Bank of Commerce
Regional Office, II Floor,
Spencer Plaza, 769 Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
2.The Senior Branch Manager,
Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to sanction educational loan on the petitioner's loan application dated 08.09.2017 within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nandagopal For R2 : No appearance

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction educational loan by considering his loan application dated 08.09.2017 within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶12

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the son of the petitioner by name R.Karthick joined the Tambov State University, Russia in the medical course for the Academic Year 2017-18 and paid Rs.6,00,000/- towards the first year fee. Since the petitioner is a daily wage employee, he is unable to pay for his son's course fee for the subsequent years. Hence, he submitted a representation dated 08.09.2017 to the second respondent, seeking educational loan, however, the second

¶13

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

¶14

respondent has not acted on the said representation so far.

¶15

3.Despite the service of notice and the name of the second respondent having been printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the second respondent either in person or through the learned counsel.

¶16

4.Considering the nature of the issue involved herein, this Court directs the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.09.2017 with regard to the grant of educational loan, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

5.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rk
+1cc to Mr.D.NANDAGOPAL, Advocate, S.R.No. 17490
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.17416
W.P.No.353 of 2018
CNR(CO)
TR(26/03/2018)

¶18

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

M.Rajendran, v. The Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajendran, v. The Regional 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

Federation of Associations Vs State of Tamilnadu

D.Lakshmikandhan, Vs University Grants Commission

Pandiyan Vs Thiru.Hemachandran

A.Dilsath Begam, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

V.Narasimman, 27 Yrs, Vs State Rep

K.Madhaiyan, Vs The Chairman