Disposed

D.Pradeep, v. The Authorized Officer

Madras HC6 Jul 2018WP/8069/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for mandamus to direct banks to sanction an educational loan. Court held petitioners had not submitted prescribed application and directed respondent bank to provide form, file same, and decide within two weeks. Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent banks to provide prescribed application form, accept petitioner's submission, and decide the loan request within two weeks.

D.Pradeep, Vs The Authorized Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.07.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.8069 of 2018

D.Pradeep

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Authorized Officer (Loan Section), Axis Bank, II Main Road,

¶9

United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.

¶10

2.The Zonal Manager, Axis Bank, Karumuthu Nilayam,

¶11

No.2, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 015.

¶12

3.The Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Thirupattur. .. Respondents

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction the educational loan to the petitioner to study B.Tech Course in Dr.M.G.R. Educational and Research Institution, Maduravoyal from the academic year 2017-18.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.T.Sreelekha

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.N.Muthukumaran,

¶16

Standing Counsel (R1 to R3)

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is a student studying B.Tech course in Dr.M.G.R. Educational and Research Institution, Maduravoyal. As the tuition fee for the said Course was more, in the month of August 2017, the petitioner, along with his father, had approached the Manager, Axis Bank, Thirupattur Branch, for educational loan. The petitioner was asked to produce bonafide certificates and other relevant documents for grant of the said educational loan of Rs.7,50,000/-. He was informed to get approval from higher authorities. But all of a sudden, in March 2018, the petitioner was informed that he cannot be sanctioned with the educational loan. Therefore, the petitioner has come this Court.

¶19

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

¶20

respondents submitted that till date the petitioner has not submitted any application in the prescribed format for sanction of educational loan.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given a representation on 17.03.2018 to the authorities requesting to sanction the educational loan of Rs.7,50,000/-. But the respondents 1 & 2 have not considered the same till date.

¶22

4.In view of the above facts, the 3^rd respondent is directed to provide with a copy of the application in the prescribed format to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner is directed to submit the filled in application for educational loan. The respondents 2 & 3, on receipt of the application from the petitioner, shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the request of the petitioner for educational loan and do the needful as per law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

5.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
va
To
1.The Authorized Officer (Loan Section),
Axis Bank, II Main Road,
United India Colony,
Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.
2.The Zonal Manager,
Axis Bank, Karumuthu Nilayam,
No.2, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 015.
3.The Branch Manager,
Axis Bank, Thirupattur.
+1cc to Mr.N.Muthukumaran, Advocate, S.R.No.44240
+1cc to Mr.D.Rajagopal, Advocate, S.R.No.44244
W.P.No.8069 of 2018
(CO)
GSP(09/07/2018)

¶24

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

D.Pradeep, v. The Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Pradeep, v. The Authorized Officer

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

A.Alahudeen, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.v.P.C & Co. Vs The Adjudicating Authority

T.D.Srinivasan, Vs The Commissioner

K.M. Mahendiravarman, Vs Thiru. Elangovan

C.Velayudham Vs Mrs. K. Nalina

M.Murugan, Vs The South Indian Bank Ltd.