SRI. NAVEEN JAVARI T.J. (REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER) SRI NARAYANA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking for declaration that the resolution passed in a meeting of Board of Directors of the 4th respondent/Corporation on 2.12.201 temporarily stopping grant of education loan as per Annexure -M. The decision taken on Item No. 9 of the 187th meeting of the Board of Director is also assailed. Further appropriate direction is sought to direct the respondents to grant education loan to study abroad. The petitioner claims to belong to Korama community, which is classified as schedule caste. He had applied for admission for six years integrated MD Physician (including MBBS) course in Odessa National Medical University, Ukraine. In that view, since he desired that he should be funded for the said education and according to him, the National Schedule Caste Finance & Development Corporation - 2nd respondent herein was to grant education loan, an application as at Annexure -E was made to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner contends that since the 4th respondent is a Nodal Agency for grant of such loan, the 2nd respondent is stated to have forwarded the application made by the petitioner for the purpose of consideration as indicated in communication dated 27.8.2012 (Annexure -L to the petition).

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No. 2 and 4 instead of considering the application, have relied on the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent as at Annexure -F indicating that the loan cannot be granted when scholarship has been granted and it would be an additional burden on the 4th respondent if loan is granted. The petitioner contends that he has not availed of any scholarship and he had made an application only for grant of loan and in such circumstance, consideration of the 4th respondent in this regard is not justified.

(3.) ON these brief contentions, which have been urged on both sides, what is necessary to be noticed is that the petitioner claiming to be entitled for grant of loan by the 2nd respondent, has made the application to the 2nd respondent. Even at this juncture, the petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent, which requires to consider the application of the petitioner, keeping in view the object of grant of such loan, being to benefit the persons belonging to the weaker sections of society should not have denied such benefit to the petitioner.