NEETHU J.J. Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a student undergoing Engineering course. In this writ petition, her grievance is mainly that though she applied for an educational loan of about Rs. 2.58 lakhs, the said application has not been processed by the Respondent Bank. According to the Petitioner, on an application made by her under the Right to Information Act, her father was issued Ext.P13 reply stating that the education loan application submitted is kept pending for want of documentary proof to verify the genuineness of address. According to the Petitioner, there is no bonafides in the stand as reflected in Ext.P13. Therefore this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Respondents to sanction the loan as sought for in Ext.P6 application.

(2.) LEARNED standing counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank contends that the address furnished by the Petitioner in different documents vary from one another. Reference in this context is made to Exts.P8, P9 and P12, ration card, voters ID card and the possession certificate which were produced by the applicant before the Bank and it is submitted that there is inconsistency in the address of the Petitioner. It is also submitted that in the application submitted by the Petitioner, she has not offered any collateral security for the loan applied. According to him, it was therefore that the application could not be processed.

(3.) THE next issue is regarding the inconsistency in the address of the Petitioner. True, as contended by the counsel for the Bank, there is variation in the address as indicated in Exts.P8, P9 and P12 referred to above. This certainly is a matter for the Petitioner to explain.