1. 'Vidyadhanam sarvadhanal pradhanam' is the age old adage in Sanskrit. So has our Nation accepted 'Education' as of national priority and is taking every effort to promote the same through various means and measures, with intent to see that any investment in the field of Education identifying, promoting and developing talents, virtually contributes to the building of the Nation as a whole. National and State level policies are being framed to ensure this basic requirement; more so, when the scope of education has widened both in India and abroad, covering new courses in diversified areas. It is accordingly that priority has been fixed as well, with the endeavor that no deserving student is denied of any opportunity to pursue the higher education for want of financial support.

2. So as to come to the rescue of the meritorious students in their pursuit for higher education, in spite of their penury, the Banks in India, especially the respondents 1 and 2 and other scheduled Banks have a major role to play in promoting and fulfilling the above national objective by giving effect to the various Schemes formulated by the Government and sought to be implemented through the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and such other machinery, providing a helping hand to the needy general public. Whether respondent State Bank of India (SBI) is justified in showing 'Nelsons' eye' to the petitioners, asking them to approach some other Bank situated nearer to their residence, has to be analysed and appreciated in the above circumstance.

3. The first petitioner is the son of the second petitioner and is undergoing studies for the B.Tech course in the 6th respondent's institution. The petitioners are stated as belonging to the lower strata of the society, being below the poverty line and it is with the intent to pursue the studies as above, that the petitioners approached the second respondent for providing an educational loan, which is stated as turned down asking the petitioners to approach either the Federal Bank Ltd or Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd which are stated as having branches more close to the residence of the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the stand taken by the respondent Bank is contrary to the national objective/policy, besides being arbitrary and illegal in all respects and that the 'rate of interest' being realised by the scheduled banks in the private sector is much on the higher side, which made the petitioners to approach the second respondent bank, which is stated as the nearest branch of the 'SBI' and the only nationalised bank in the entire Panchayat.

4. The claim of the petitioners is sought to be resisted by the respondents 1 and 2, on behalf of whom, a statement has been filed through their Standing Counsel. It is contended that the action pursued by the Bank is in conformity with Annexure-1 guidelines issued by the RBI and in tune with Annexure-II norms fixed and circulated pursuant to the meeting of the Chief Executives of the Public Sector Banks held on 18.11.2005. The petitioners got the writ petition amended, incorporating an additional ground/relief, seeking for a declaration to the effect that Annexure- I/II cannot stand in the way of the petitioners in claiming for and obtaining the benefits under the particular Educational Loan Scheme.

5. Normally, there cannot be any direction by way of a writ of mandamus to provide a loan to a particular party/borrower, which essentially comes within the realm of contract. The proposal when accepted, is put into shape as an agreement, followed by consequential steps, granting the loan subject to the agreement to have it repaid with interest in the manner specified. Whether a person is eligible to obtain the loan, what should be the extent of the loan, what should be the terms; whether any security is to be collected and if so, to what extent; what are the parameters to be observed, particularly when such loans are pursuant to specific Schemes formulated by the Gov