A. Abhishek Reddy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filled for the following reliefs:—

“(i) To issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to close the Education Loan Account bearing Education Loan Account No. 33835700340 of the Petitioner No. 1 after waiving of the interest of the education loan.

(ii) To issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to un-hold the Savings Account of the Petitioner No. 1 bearing Savings Account No.-20055091371 at SBI, Alankar Branch, Boring Road, Patna, which has been illegally put on hold by the Respondent No. 6.

(iii) To issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 7 to rectify the CIBIL Score of the Petitioners having CIBIL Score of 673 and 617, which has been deliberately made low due to an outstanding over-due amount of Rs. 26,248/- and the same is reflecting in the CIBIL Report of the petitioners.

(iv) To issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to pay a total amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) @ 18% P.A. to the Petitioners as a compensation towards the inconvenience, loss, trauma, harassment and mental agony caused deliberately to them.

(v) To issue a writ/order/direction holding and declaring that during the pendency of the writ petition pass an appropriate interim/ex-parte interim order preventing the Respondents from taking any further coercive action against the petitioners and/or No further interest be levied by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 against the Education Loan Account bearing Education Loan Account No. 33835700340 of the petitioners.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have taken a loan on 14.05.2014 and immediately thereafter, the petitioner No.1 has repaid the loan on 30.08.2014. However, the authorities have calculated the interest for the above period on a monthly basis contrary to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India in respect of the student loans by all the Banks. Learned counsel has stated that the authorities have till date not taken any steps for recovery of the amounts due to them even though more than nine years have elapsed. Learned counsel has stated that the amounts due which are shown in the loan account of the Petitioner No.1 are time barred and the interest which was calculated between the period from 14.05.2014 to 30.08.2014 i.e. the date of taking loan and the date of the return of the amounts has already expired way-back in the year 2017 itself. Further, it is stated that the action of the authorities in calculating the interest on the interest from 2014 onwards is also time barred and, therefore, the authority could not had written to the Respondent No. 8 about the outstanding loan amount of the petitioner. That based on the letter written by the Respondent- Bank, the respondents has reduced the CIBIL scoring of the petitioners thereby affecting his right to get loans. Learned counsel has relied on the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashdeo R. Bhojwani vs. Abhyudaya Co- Operative Bank Limited and Another reported in (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 158. In the aforesaid judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:—

“B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. vs. Parag Gupta and Associates, para 42 of which reads as follows: (SCC p. 664)

42. It is thus clear that since the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code from the inception of the Code, Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted. “The right to sue”, therefore, accrues when a default occurs. If the default has occurred over three years prior to the date of filing of the application, the application would be barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, save and except in those cases where, in the facts of the case, Section