The court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's representation for the education loan in a diligent and fair manner, in line with the principles of Natural Justice.

1. Heard both sides.

2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

3. According to the petitioner, she belongs to a backward class community and hails from a poor family. Her husband was working as a labour in Dubai and returned to India on 25.07.2016 (as informed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner before this Court). Her son Mohamed Rejas completed his +2 studies in Kendra Vidhyalaya Higher Secondary School, Sivagangai during the academic year 2014-2015 and secured 82.87% and after school studies, his son participated in the joint entrance examination (Advanced 2015) conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology and he passed the said examination on merits. Later, he was sponsored to the Indian Institute of Crop Processing Technology, Thanjavur, as per allotment letter of the Central Seat Allocation Board. Based on that, he joined the college immediately.

4. The stand of the petitioner is that a structure of the fees for first year to fourth years runs as under:

Totally, Rs.5,96,550/- is fixed by the college for completing the course.”

5. Because of the petitioner's poor family background and financial crisis, she is unable to mobilize the said amount, for which, she has decided to apply before the Respondent/ Bank. In fact, in the said application, her son had affixed her signature. After all verifications, the official of the Respondent/Bank orally instructed her to get signature from her husband (her son's father) and also informed that after that only, that application will be considered. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband, since he was in abroad, unable to obtain his signature and therefore, she projected a representation to the Respondent/Bank on 28.03.2016 narrating all the facts and requested to sanction the education loan to her son.

6. The core stand advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no bar for the petitioner (being a mother) to apply for the education loan on behalf of her son and in fact, the condition imposed by the Respondent/Bank that her husband viz., the father of her son could also apply for the loan is an unreasonable one, besides the same is an arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory one. Hence, she has filed the present writ petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondent/Bank to sanction the education loan of Rs.1,71,150/- to her son for the year 2015-16.

7. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank that the Respondent/Bank never issued any loan application to the petitioner. But the petitioner had down loaded the application on 'on-line request' for the UCO education loan and filled the same including the Appraisal Form, Statement of Means, Pre Sanction Visit Report in her residence, which are to be filled up by the Respondent Bank's Manager and produced the same together with other certificates by way of typed set of papers before this Court. Further, it is represented on behalf of the Respondent/Bank that neither the petitioner nor her son had never approached the Respondent/Bank and never applied for education loan.

8. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank proceeds to take a plea that as per serial No.10 of the Master Circular of UCO Bank Loan Scheme for Studies in India and Abroad, dated 25.10.2012, (updated up to 10.10.2012) security is required for grant of loan for a sum of Rs.5,96,550/- and the same reads as follows:-