The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of banks to follow government educational loan schemes and provide assistance to deserving individuals, emphasizing the prohibition of discriminatory treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

1. Heard both sides.

2. No steps have been taken for issuance of notice on behalf of the Petitioner in so far as the Second Respondent/ College is concerned. Since the First Respondent/Bank alone has to sanction the educational loan to the Petitioner, notice to the Second Respondent is also dispensed with, by this Court, in the interest of Justice.

3. The Petitioner has projected the present Writ of Mandamus, praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent/Bank to sanction and disburse the educational loan to him for pursuing the M.B.B.S. Degree Course at Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Chinna Kolambakkam, Palayanoor Post, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kanchipuram District, within the period that may be determined by this Court.

4. According to the Petitioner, he is a resident of Village in Sayalkudi, Ramanathapuram District. He has secured 468 marks out of 500 in Tenth Standard. Further he had secured 1127 marks in Higher Secondary Course during March, 2012. It was his dream from childhood to pursue Medical Education. He tookpart in the Counselling held in M.B.B.S. Course and was allotted the M.B.B.S. seat at Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Chinna Kolambakkam, Palayanoor Post, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kanchipuram District/Second Respondent herein. He had joined the Second Respondent College to pursue his studies and had paid his First Year fees with great difficulty. His father is working in a private firm and as such he could not meet out his educational expenses.

5. When that be the fact situation, the Petitioner had approached the First Respondent/Bank for educational loan in September, 2013 to continue his studies. To avail educational loan, he had produced bona fide and Fee Certificate certifying that he is a bona fide student of the Second Respondent. As he has to pay a sum of Rs.13,75,000/-for Five Years as fees, which includes Tuition Fees, Exam Fees, Hostel Fees and University Registration Fees [as stated in paragraph No.5 of the Affidavit of the Writ Petition and according to the learned counsel, the Petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.16,75,000/- for Five Years in question], which is beyond his economic strength. As such, unless, the said loan is sanctioned, he may not be able to complete his education.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is desirous of studying his professional course and his family is not financially sound to backup and meet the expenses for him. Therefore, he had approached the First Respondent/Bank several times in person and submitted his application with necessary requirements to avail the educational loan. The First Respondent orally informed him that they would consider his educational loan as per norms of the Bank. Also that he has to pay the second year fees by the month of December, 2014.

7. The Petitioner had preferred a representation dated 10.03.2014 to the First Respondent/Bank to sanction and disburse the educational loan. However, the First Respondent/ Bank having received the same, had not taken any steps to sanction and disburse the loan amount so far. Unless, the First Respondent disburses the loan amount in question, he could not be in a position to continue his studies.

8. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the First Respondent/Bank that at the first instance, the Petitioner was informed about the necessity of furnishing security for huge loan amount of Rs.16,75,000/- and also that in the first instance, they had not come prepared and not able to furnish the security so as to avail the educational loan. Further his application was sent to the Bank Higher Authority namely, the Regional Manager No.II, Zonal Office at Madurai. Also that there is no request from the Petitioner till 12.03.2014 in regard to the educational loan in issue.

9. It is the stand of the First Respondent/Bank that the Petitioner never approached th