ASHOK KUMAR WATTS Vs. UCO BANK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claiming himself to be a person from economically weaker section availed the facility of education loan from the respondent bank, for study of his son Neeraj Watts. Thereafter, on the basis of a scheme (Annexure P-2) introduced by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, to provide Interest Subsidy for the period of moratorium on Educational Loans taken by students from economically weaker sections from scheduled banks under the Education Loan Scheme of the Indian Banks' Association to pursue technical/ professional education studies in India, the petitioner approached the respondent bank to claim interest subsidy. However, vide communication dated 21.01.2015 (wrongly mentioned as 21.01.2014) (Annexure P-3), office of Banking Ombudsman informed the petitioner that as per the Head Office and Government of India guidelines, only interest component of those education loans which were availed upto 31.03.2009 and are outstanding as on 31.12.2013 shall be adjusted under the scheme of subsidy on interest payment. The petitioner was further informed that it was observed that in his case, an amount of interest charged was Rs. 83,456/- and repayment received was Rs. 1,02,455/-. Hence, finding that no interest component was outstanding as on 31.12.2013, claim of the petitioner was not found admissible. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice/representation dated 10.02.2015 (Annexure P-4) requesting the respondent bank to release the amount of subsidy, which has not been decided so far.

(2.) Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not releasing/ adjusting the amount of interest and not deciding the aforesaid legal notice/ representation dated 10.02.2015 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to release/adjust the amount of interest, in pursuance of the guidelines/policy of the Government of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the guidelines/policy of the Government of India, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2, there is no such condition that the subsidy will be given to the outstanding interest component, and the respondents have wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner on this ground.