IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.648 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12233 of 2022 ======================================================

Raj Kumar Mishra son of Sri Subedar Mishra, Resident of Arpana Bank Colony, Phase-II, Near Ganga Colony, Ramjaipal Road, Bailey Road, Patna, P.O.-Danapur Cantt., P.S. Rupaspur, District-Patna.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Additional Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Director (Higher Education), Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, R. Block, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-

800001.

6. The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Branch Bailey Road, Jagdev Path, Patna-800014.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate Mr. Subodh Kumar Barnwal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG 13 For the Bank (BOI) : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Ms. Dilkash Khan, Advocate Ms. Zeba Akhtar, Advocate Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA)

Date : 09-02-2026 Heard Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, learned AAG-13 for the State.

2. The present letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.04.2024 passed in C.W.J.C No. 12233 of 2022 by the Hon'ble Single Judge, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner, having knowingly signed the loan agreement is bound by the terms and condition and cannot claim benefit contrary to the agreement under the student credit scheme. The brief fact of the case is that on the basis of the scheme formulated by the State of Bihar, the son of the appellant had applied for a loan from the respondent-Bank. Under the said scheme which is formulated by the Government of Bihar the student would be entitled to a student loan for pursuing higher education at nominal rate of interest and also eligible for moratorium for a period of three years for repaying the loan.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the scheme, the students will be given a loan covering the tuition fees and they are obliged to repay the said loan only after a moratorium period of three years and in case they are still unemployed even after completion of the course, a further moratorium period of one year is granted at the interest chargeable at the nominal rate of 2% to 4%. The bank authority has issued a letter to the appellant stating that the appellant is due with an amount of Rs. 4,60,319/- as on 25.04.2022 and charging interest at the rate of approximately 11.7%. He further submits that as per the scheme, in case the student is unable to repay the loan amount, the State Government will reimburse the loan amount to the maximum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the Bank and the interest payable is between

2% to 4% only.

4. The appellant had secured a loan after obtaining Student Credit Card and after completing his education, has obtained an employment as well. The dispute arose when he had to return the bank loan. As per the agreement with the respondent- Bank of India, which had granted a loan of Rs. 3,34,000/- to the appellant, the Bank would have charged interest on the said amount after a moratorium period of three years at the rate of 11.7% and if the moratorium period was extended for another year, the interest would get compounded. The agreement for repayment of the loan amount was signed by the appellant and the Bank of India. It appears from the pleadings that the appel