Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.VENUGOPAL, J.
M.Sumathi - Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar - Respondent
W.P(MD)No.14220 of 2016
Decided on : 10-08-2016
For the Appellant : M/s. V.Muniasamy
For the Respondent: Mr. A.Muthukaruppan Addl.Govt.Pleader, Mr. S.Sethuraman, M/s. M.Solaisamy
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of banks to consider education loan applications sympathetically, in line with government schemes and constitutional provisions promoting education and welfare.
Headnote:
Education Loan - B.Sc Nursing Course - G.O.(Ms)No.85, Higher Education(J2) Department, dated 16.4.2010, Clause 15 of the Revised Model Educational Loan Scheme, Article 21, Article 41, Article 45, Article 46 - The court discussed the provisions of G.O.(Ms)No.85, Higher Education(J2) Department, dated 16.4.2010, and Clause 15 of the Revised Model Educational Loan Scheme. The court also referred to Article 21, Article 41, Article 45, and Article 46 of the Constitution of India in the context of education and the welfare of the weaker sections of the society. The interpretation and application of these legal provisions influenced the court's decision in directing the bank to consider the petitioner's application for an education loan.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student from a financially disadvantaged background, sought an education loan to continue her B.Sc Nursing Course. The college had collected tuition fees in contravention of government orders, and the bank delayed the loan sanction, affecting the petitioner's education.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was eligible for tuition fee exemption as per government orders and directed the bank to consider her loan application sympathetically within two weeks.
Issues: The issues involved the collection of tuition fees in contravention of government orders, delay in loan sanction by the bank, and the petitioner's eligibility for tuition fee exemption.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's eligibility for tuition fee exemption, the delay in loan sanction, and the welfare provisions of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court directed the bank to consider the petitioner's education loan application sympathetically within two weeks.
Heard both sides.
2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents No.1 to 4.
4. According to the Petitioner, she had joined the B.Sc Nursing Course in Chithirai College of Nursing at No.36-E, Kuruvikaran Salai, Madurai - 625009 in the academic year 2015-2016, for four years B.Sc Nursing Course. Her parents are agricultural daily wage labourers living below the poverty line and are having four daughters(including the Petitioner). She was selected for B.Sc Nursing Course through counselling and then she secured admission in the Chithirai College of Nursing at Madurai. She is living below the poverty line and not able to pay the education fees for the four years B.Sc Nursing Course. Therefore, she had submitted her Education Loan Application, dated 30.1.2016 to the Third Respondent for sanctioning of education loan to continue her education.
5. The stand of the Petitioner is that the Fourth Respondent/The Principal, Chithirai College of Nursing, Madurai had collected a sum of Rs.20,000/- from her on 7.12.2015 towards tuition fees. When she was pursing her first year B.Sc Nursing Course, suddenly, the Fourth Respondent/The Principal, Chithirai College of Nursing, 36-E, Kuruvikaran Salai, Madurai-625009 sent her out from the College as the prescribed fee of Rs.1,05,000/- for the first year 2015-16 was not paid as per the College order, dated 4.12.2015. Although she had repeatedly requested the Third Respondent/The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mallankinar, Virudhunagar District in person and took up the matter to the higher authorities, but no action was action till date. Hence she was running from Pillar to post and she finds it difficult to get the loan sanctioned from Third Respondent/Bank.
6. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner is the first person in her family, who is undertaking her first graduate course. She had obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the competent authority to say that she is the first person in her family to pursue the first graduate course. She is eligible to get tuition fees as per G.O.(Ms)No.85, Higher Education(J2) Department, dated 16.4.2010. Although she is exempted from the payment of tuition fees as per the aforesaid Government order, the Fourth Respondent/College had collected a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 7.12.2015(vide Bill Receipt No.1703, dated 7.12.2015) in contravention of G.O.(Ms)No.85, Higher Education(J2) Department, dated 16.4.2010.
7. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that the Third Respondent/Bank sought to sanction the education loan of Rs.1,05,000/- for the first year 2015-2016 to her, so as to enable her to join the on going regular Revision Classes for appearing in their annual examination scheduled to be held on 17.8.2016.
8. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks in aid of the order of this Court, dated 3.11.2010 in W.P.No.18935 of 2010 between K.Vijayakandhan vs. The Manager, Canara Bank, Murugankudi Branch, Murugankudi and post, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District, whereby and where-under at para 6, it has been observed as under:
''6. In order to consider the plea of the petitioners, it will be relevant to refer to clause 15 of the Revised Model Educational Loan Scheme For Pursuing Higher Studies in India and Abroad. Clause 15 reads as follows:-
15. OTHER CONDITIONS:
a. Meritorious Students Banks which wish to support highly and exceptionally meritorious/deserving students without security may delegate such powers to a fairly higher level authority.
b. Multiple Loans In case of receipt of application for more than one loan for student borrower from a family, the 'family' as a unit has to be taken into account for considering the loan and security taken in relation to the total quantum of finance disbursed, subject to margin and repaying capacity of the parent/student.
c. Minimu
