K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the respondent denying the educational loan to the petitioner on the ground that there is a over due from the father of the petitioner in respect of a credit facility availed from another financial institution.

2. The petitioner, after completion of her Higher Secondary Education, joined the Engineering Course at Sri Krishna College of Engineering and Technology (Autonomous) Sugunapuram, Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore District. She applied for educational loan with the respondent bank making her father as a co-applicant. The respondent bank rejected her application only on the ground that there is a over due from her father, who availed some credit facility in another financial institution, to the tune of Rs. 4,60,997/- as per the report submitted by CIBIL.

3. This writ petition is filed by raising very many grounds upon which, the main ground is to the effect that return of the petitioner's application on the ground that the co-applicant, namely, petitioner's father, is a defaulter, is legally unsustainable.

4. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent, wherein the reason stated in the impugned order is reiterated to justify the rejection.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court in similar matters favouring the petitioner's case by holding that educational loan application cannot be rejected only on the reason that co-applicant is a defaulter. In support of such contention, the learned counsel relied on an unreported decision made in W.P. No. 6286 of 2011 dated 18.08.2011 and a decision reported in 2011 Writ L.R. 765 (R. Sahana v. The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce and Others).

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submitted that as the co-applicant, namely, father of the petitioner is a defaulter, the rejection order was rightly passed.

7. It is seen that the issue involved in this case has already been considered and decided by this Court in the above referred decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In W.P. No. 6286 of 2011 dated 18.08.2011, the learned single Judge, after following the decision made and reported in 2011 Writ L.R. 765 (cited supra) has observed at paragraph 11 to 13 as follows:-

"11. Admittedly, the principal borrower insofar as the education loan is concerned is the student, who avails the loan. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the petitioner, who has to repay the loan after the completion of her course of study and the bank gives moratorium for the repayment of the loan. Therefore, it is contended that the position of the co-obligant/co-borrower is hardly a factor, which could be basis for rejection of an application. Identical issue as in this case came up for consideration before this Court in W.P. No. 12432 of 2011 [R. Sahana v. The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce and Others] and the learned Judge (Justice D. Hariparanthaman), while considering the similar case, where the student's father was a defaulter in respect of a loan availed by him, after analysing the scheme relating to the education loan, which was produced by the respondent bank therein held as follows:-

"10. According to the Bank, since the petitioner's parents became defaulters and their loan accounts became NPA, the Bank could not disburse the educational loan to the petitioner.

11. In my view, the educational loan could not come within the purview of the loan that is mentioned in the Loan Policy Review and Modification (2009-10) produced by the Respondents Bank. If the petitioner's parents want the disbursal of any loan amount even after they became defaulters, the Bank could refuse to disburse the amount. In this case, it is not the request of the petitioner to disburse the loan to her parents. On the other hand, it is her cas