Petitioner availed a loan from the 5^th respondent for an

amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs under the educational loan scheme “PNB

Vidyalakshyapurthi”. Over and above the said amount, on

11.3.2009 an amount of Rs.32,800/- was also advanced to the

petitioner for her educational purpose by the 5^th respondent

bank. As per the terms of the scheme, the repayment for the loan

amount will start only from the one year after the completion of

the course or 6 months after getting the employment, whichever

is earlier. There was also 1% reduction in the interest rate, if the

amount is paid during the course period. According to the

petitioner, there was certain declarations made by the Finance

Minister during the financial year 2014-15 in the parliament with

respect to the interest waiver to the educational loans. To put it

short, repayment was defaulted, consequent to which revenue

recovery action was initiated at the instance of the bank, and it

is thus challenging the coercive action, this writ petition is filed.

2.

When this writ petition was admitted to the files of this

Court, interim order against coercive action was granted on

3

condition that petitioner remits an amount of Rs.25,000/-, within

one week from 14.1.2019 I am informed that the condition is

complied with by the petitioner. Yet another vital contention

advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, no

adjustment of subsidy is provided by the bank, which is entitled

in educational loan matters. However, learned Counsel for the

bank submitted that already the said amount is adjusted, which

is clearly discernible from Ext.P2 statement of account provided

by the bank.

3.

A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 5^th

respondent, justifying the stand adopted by the bank, in view of

the default on the part of the petitioner, in the matter of

repayment in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

4.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner,

learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing

Counsel for the 5^th respondent bank and perused the pleadings

and documents on record.

5.

The discussion of facts made above would make it

clear that there is default on the part of the petitioner. The point,

that is raised by the petitioner with respect to the non-

4

adjustment of the subsidy cannot be set to be correct, in view of

the reflection of the same in Ext.P2 statement of account

provided by the bank. If at all petitioner is entitled to get any

interest waiver on account of any notification issued by the

reserve bank of India or the Central Government, it is for the

petitioner to pursue the remedy before the 5^th respondent bank.

According to the petitioner, even though petitioner went to the

bank, seeking waiver of interest, the bank was reluctant to do

the same or to accept any representation from the petitioner, due

to the pendency of the writ petition before this Court.

6.

Taking into account all respective inputs provided by the

petitioner and evaluating the situation, this writ petition is disposed

of, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to submit any

representation before the 5^th respondent bank within three weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which if received,

shall be considered in accordance with law and attain finality at the

earliest possible time and at any rate within a month thereafter,

taking into account any beneficial notifications issued by the Reserve

Bank of India or the Central Government in favour of the persons,

who have availed educational loans. If a request is made for the

5

issuance of calculation statement, the bank shall provide the same als

.

Sd/

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Jm/

6

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1

A PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/08/2007

FROM THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2

A PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASS BOOK OF THE

PETITIONER OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT HELD WITH

THE FIFTH RESPONDENT BANK.

EXHIBIT P3

A COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF NEWS PUBLIS