The avowed objective of the Educational Loan Scheme is to help meritorious and economically poor candidates pursue their education, and the court may direct the sanctioning of the full loan amount as per the Fees Estimation Certificate issued by the educational institution.

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned letter dated Nil passed by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to sanction education loan of Rs.4,70,000/ to the petitioner, within a time frame.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he came off with flying colours through out his studies and eventually, he completed his B.E. Degree securing 8.27 C.G.P.A.marks. Since he hails from poor family, he applied for an educational loan with the third respondent / Central Bank of India, Nagercoil Branch for doing his higher education on Master of Technology in Solar Energy, for which, he applied in SRM University, after scoring 16th rank in the entrance examination conducted by the University. The University also selected the petitioner and directed him to pay Rs.4,70,000/-towards tuition fee, hostel fee etc. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the third respondent herein to provide educational loan to him, who in turn, assured the petitioner to provide educational loan to the tune of Rs.4,70,000/-. But, contrary to their assurance, the third respondent said that they would sanction only Rs.1,70,000/-towards the educational loan. The petitioner further alleges that the third respondent deliberately prolonged the issue without any rhyme or reason. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.

3. The third respondent through his counter affidavit submitted that the Government of Tamil nadu had constituted a Committee on Fixation of Fees in respect of Self Financing Professional Colleges, which after deliberation had fixed fees for the self financing professional colleges at Tamil Nadu. As per this Committee Report, the fees of the M.Tech Course for Government quota & Management quota is fixed at Rs.30,000/-per semester and hostel fee per year is Rs.25,000/-. Further, as per the fee fixed by the Committee on Fixation of Fees in respect of Self Financing Professional Colleges, the loan amount was sanctioned to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/-. The said loan amount was sanctioned as per the norms and guidelines given by the Reserve Bank of India. Further, the Private Educational Institution are bound by the report of Committee on fixation of fees in respect of Self Financing Professional Colleges and they ought to have collected the fee in accordance with this report. If the educational institution where the Writ Petitioner is studying, demands excess fee than the fee fixed by the competent committee, then the Writ Petitioner ought to have filed necessary complaint before the proper authority not to claim more loan amount. Eventually, he prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition.

4. When the matter is taken-up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner, placed much reliance upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2013 (2) CWC 53, The Regional Manager, State Bank of India Vs. R. Vijai Priya.

5. I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. At the out set, it is to be pointed out that the Educational Loan Scheme is framed by the Government with an avowed object to help the meritorious and economically poor candidates, who suffer due to financial constraints, to pursue their education. Undoubtedly, it gives a new lease of life to such meritorious and economically poor candidates to struggle to make both ends meet. In the case on hand, the third respondent lays much emphasis that as per the Committee on Fixation of Fees, they have released the loan amount, which cannot be found fault with by the petitioner. However, the same ground was already negatived by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Regional Manager, State Bank of India Vs. R. Vijai Priya, reported in 2013 (2) CWC 53. Therefore, the issue is no longer inter gra. In the said judgment