E.N. SREEGURU Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a student of First Year Engineering Degree in Electronics and Communication Branch at Muthoot Institute of Technology & Science (MITS) at Puthencruz, Ernakulam. According to the petitioner, he has got full A+ grade in his SSLC examination and 92% marks in the Plus Two examination and the same are evidenced by Exts.P1 & P2. The petitioner approached Tripunithura Branch of the 1st respondent Bank seeking education loan and filed Ext.P4 application for the same. On 18.9.2013, the petitioner came to know that only Rs.40,800/ - was sanctioned by the 1st respondent, even though he had applied for Rs.4,00,000/ - with a schedule of expenses. Thereupon, the 1st respondent bank issued Ext.P5 letter of arrangement showing the sanctioned amount. According to Ext.P5, only the tuition fee is taken as education fee by the bank. But, such an explanation is not given by the bank in their advertisements regarding education loan. According to the bank, hostel fee, mess fee and expenses for purchasing computer are also included in the schedule of education fee. Admission fee, caution deposit, University fund, payment towards library fees, expenses needed for food and travelling, expenses for dress material, etc. were not at all considered by the 1st respondent as educational expenses. According to the petitioner, computer, printer, scanner and Internet connection are very essential for an engineering student to collect data connected to his subject. For those equipments, it will cost Rs.30,000/ - to Rs.1,00,000/ -. The travel expenses and expense of food and clothing may vary from time to time. All the payments paid and payable, except tuition fees paid in college, are denied by the bank from the loan account. The petitioner has produced a schedule of expenses before the 1st respondent bank; but, the 1st respondent has not considered the schedule without any reason. According to the office of the 1st respondent, such a schedule is not permissible as per the resolution of the bank. It is with these averments the petitioner filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

(2.) The respondent bank filed a counter affidavit denying the claim of the petitioner. According to the respondent bank, the claims made out in the writ petition are fanciful and imaginative and the petitioner has not considered the realistic approach based on Ext.R1(d). The petitioner is not entitled to hostel fees or expenses for food as the petitioner is a day scholar. The petitioner is also not entitled to travel expenses as travel expenses for going abroad alone has been considered for grant of loan under Exts.R1(a) to R1(c). With regard to Internet, computer, printer, scanner and Internet connection, no quotation/estimate was submitted by the petitioner. Further more, even supposing the petitioner had submitted the same, the petitioner was not entitled to the entire value of the same. On the other hand, the same would come within 20% of the tuition fees payable by him as which has been fully sanctioned as Rs.6,800/ -. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to any further amount under any further head.

(3.) In view of the contentions raised in the counter affidavit, this Court passed an interim order dated 26.11.2013 directing the respondent bank to file an affidavit to reconcile the anomalies pointed out by this Court in the interim order. The relevant portion of the interim order dated 26.11.2013 reads as follows: