SIVASAMY Vs. BRANCH MANAGER CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. The prayer in the above writ petition is for issuing a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent bank to consider the application given by the petitioner for availing educational loan for the petitioner's son to enable him to pursue his study in the B.E. (Electrical and Electronics Engineering) course at SNS college of engineering, Sathy Main Road, Kurumbapalayam, Coimbatore and grant education loan within an appropriate time.

(2.) According to the petitioner, his son Kovedriraraj after completing his +2 course was selected in the counseling conducted by the Anna University and allotted a sheat in B.E. (Electrical and Electronics Engineering) in SNS College of Engineering, Coimbatore. According to the petitioner, he applied for an educational loan to the respondent bank on 23.09.2009, by way of a representation requisite for grant of educational loan. It is further stated that though he under took repay the loan properly in the event of the loan being granted, the respondent was not inclined to consider the claim of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that when the petitioner approached the bank for sanction of educational loan, the bank agreed to consider his request and advised the petitioner to submit an application in the proper format with requisite enclosures. The application dated 07.10.2009 submitted by the petitioner was received by the bank on 08.10.2009 and immediately a card was sent on 09.10.2009 being the "Call on Us" to the petitioner and a registered letter was sent on 12.10.2009, calling upon the petitioner to meet the respondent any time between 4.00 to 5.00 p.m on or before 16.10.2009. It is further stated that parallelly the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition on 08.10.2009. It is further stated that on 16.10.2009 the petitioner and his son came to the respondent bank and the Branch Manager spent over one hour and assured them that the bank would not reject a loan proposal for educational purposes if they satisfy the eligibility and that there was no need for them to have approached this Court. It is further stated that the bankers are well within their rights to verify the bona fides and credentials of the parties and the application submitted by the petitioner is under consideration and there is absolutely no cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court. Further the respondent bank is attempting to follow the procedure and prudential norms of banking and it is the duty of each officer to follow the prescribed procedure and guidelines in banking operations and the writ petitioner has approached this Court in needless haste. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank brought to the notice of this Court, the loan application submitted by the petitioner and received by the bank on 08.10.2009, the copy the "Call on Us" letter and the circular issued by the Divisional Manager of the respondent bank providing to educational loans filed in the typed set of papers. The learned counsel would further submit that the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was uncalled for as the bank was processing the application.