1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is against Exts. P2 and P3 revenue recovery notices issued at the instance of the respondent Bank.

According to the petitioners, who are the parents of Smt. Jwala, an education loan of Rs. 3,32,000/- was availed of by their daughter in 2004. The loan was for the purpose of completing her studies in B.Sc Nursing at the Vivekananda College of Nursing, Bangalore. It is stated that after completing 3 years of her study, since the institute did not have recognition of the authorities, students including their daughter was debarred from appearing for the public examination. As a result, the student had to join another college in September, 2007 where she is now undergoing her course in the final year.

Meantime full amount of financial assistance from the Bank was availed of. On the allegation that default was committed in the matter of repayment, revenue recovery proceedings are now initiated.

Petitioners challenge the revenue recovery proceedings on various grounds. First contention is that in terms of the scheme, the repayment is to start after one year of completion of studies or after 6 months of getting employment. It is stated that the student is only in the final year of the course and therefore, at present she cannot be accused of having committed default in the matter of repayment. The second contention raised by the petitioners is that they are in no way connected with the loan availed of to render them liable for revenue recovery action. Thirdly it is alleged that the revenue recovery authorities are proceeding to attach the property and the residential house where the petitioners are residing and according to the petitioners, the property exclusively belongs to the first petitioner who is neither the loanee nor even a guarantor.

2. However, the case of the Bank is that the duration of the course is 4 years and that the loan was availed of in 2004 and the moratorium period of one year has also expired. It is contended that even after the expiry of the said period no repayment was made and therefore the Bank was entitled to proceed to recover its dues.

3. In so far as the liability of the petitioners is concerned, it is contended that the loan was guaranteed to the student as well as guardian. It is stated that the 2nd petitioner has also signed the loan agreement and the other documents as guardian of his daughter and therefore the Bank was entitled to proceed against the 2nd petitioner also for recovering the dues.

4. I have considered the contentions. As already noticed, one of the contentions is that the property which is proceeded against exclusively belongs to the first petitioner, the mother of the student and that she is in no way concerned of the loan availed of. Therefore, according to the petitioners, her property is not liable to be proceeded against. Although the Bank has proceeded the application for loan, the loan agreement and the revival letters, none of these documents show that the first petitioner has either applied for the loan or signed the loan agreement or the other documents. In such a situation if the immovable property that is proceeded against is exclusively that of the first petitioner, such property cannot be subjected to revenue recovery action for realizing the liability that is due to the Bank.

5. In so far as the contention of the petitioners that repayment of the loan is to commence only one year after completion of the study or after 6 months of getting employment is concerned, admittedly duration of the course in question is 4 years. The loan was availed of in 2004. By now more than 7 years have elapsed. In such a situation, for whatever be the reasons, if the student has not completed the course within the duration specified, that does not absolve the student from the liability to make repayment of the amount due to the Bank. In other words the student cannot contend that till he completes the course as he pleases the Bank should wait. T