THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.764 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. A.Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. P.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the
respondent/writ petitioner.
2. Appellants before us are State Bank of India and its officials.
3. The writ appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No.23240 of 2021 filed by the respondent.
4. Respondent had filed the related writ petition for a direction to the appellants (who were arrayed as respondents in the writ petition) to disburse the educational loan to the respondent's daughter as per sanction dated 02.08.2019 2 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.764 of 2022 without insisting on submission of Land Conversion Certificate in respect of the land offered as surety.
5. It was submitted before the learned Single Judge that though the petitioner had applied for issuance of non- agricultural land proceedings, the same was not furnished to the respondent which was one of the conditions for grant of educational loan by the appellants. Therefore, respondent had to approach the Court.
6. After filing of the writ petition, the concerned Tahsildar issued the non-agricultural land conversion proceedings on 21.10.2022. It is in such circumstances that learned Single Judge took the view that non-release of the sanctioned loan amount to the petitioner was not justified. Relying upon two decisions of the Kerala High Court as well as Madras High Court where directions were issued by the concerned High Courts to the Bank for releasing the sanctioned educational loan against the surety of agricultural land, learned Single Judge vide the order dated 12.10.2022 directed the appellants to release the sanctioned educational 3 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.764 of 2022 loan of Rs.30 lakhs to the petitioner. Insofar guidelines issued by the appellants pertaining to sanctioning of educational loan, learned Single Judge took the view that those guidelines were administrative in nature lacking in statutory force.
7. That apart, when the respondent had offered adequate surety in the form of the subject land which has undergone conversion from agricultural use to non- agricultural use, learned Single Judge directed release of the sanctioned educational loan within a period of four (04) weeks without reference to the said guidelines.
8. On due consideration, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge to warrant interference. Appellants have got adequate surety as coverage for the loan sanctioned to the respondent.
9. In the circumstances, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
4 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.764 of 2022
10. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
___________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ___________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 22.11.2022 KL