Rajasree R Kamath vs The Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 1576 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

  FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/25TH POUSHA, 1942

                WP(C).No.25336 OF 2020(N)


PETITIONERS:

     1     RAJASREE R KAMATH,
           AGED 48 YEARS,
           W/O. RAJEEV R KAMATH,
           RESIDING AT J.M. GARDENS 47,
           NEAR CHINMAYAVIDHYALAYA, VADUTHALA,
           CHERANALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 023.

     2     SHIVALI R KAMATH,
           AGED 21 YEARS,
           D/O. RAJEEV R KAMATH,
           RESIDING AT DO..DO..

           BY ADV. SRI.RINU. S. ASWAN

RESPONDENTS:

     1     THE UNION OF INDIA,
           REP. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
           MINISTRY OF BANKING AND FINANCE,
           NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001.

     2     STATE BANK OF INDIA,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
           VADUTHALA BRANCH, NEAR BPCL PUMP,
           CHITOOR ROAD, VADUTHALA,
           ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 023.

     3     PRINCIPAL,
           AMRITHA SCHOOL OF PHARMACY, AMRITA VISHWA
           VIDYAPEETHAM, HEALTH CARE CAMPUS,
           ELAMMAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 041.

            R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON, SC
            R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN
            R1 BY SRI P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.25336/2020
                                :2 :




                        JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 15th day of January, 2021

Petitioners 1 and 2 have approached this Court,

aggrieved by the refusal of the 2 nd respondent-Bank to

sanction education loan to the 2nd petitioner, who is daughter

of the 1st petitioner, for pursuing Pharm-D Course in Amrita

School of Pharmacy headed by the 3rd respondent.

2. The 2nd petitioner is a bright student who has

secured 9.8 GPA in her matriculation and 86.7% marks in 12 th

Standard Board Examination. Considering the meritorious

record, the 3rd respondent-Principal admitted the 2 nd petitioner

to the Doctoral Course in Pharmacy (Regular) for the

academic year 2017-'22. The 2 nd petitioner secured distinction

in her first year of Pharm-D Course and a First Class in the

second year. The student even presented a research paper

on "Detailed View on Repurposed Drugs, Tracking of WP(C) No.25336/2020

Vaccines and brief view of Prophylactic Nanomedicines as an

Alternative Approach and Patient Care for COVID-19", the

manuscript of which is acknowledged for publication in

international journals.

3. Estimated course fee for Pharm-D is ₹16.73 lakhs

and the 1st petitioner could pay course fee of her daughter for

the first two years. The extended last date for paying third

year's course fee was 31.12.2020 and 2nd petitioner applied

for education loan for the the 3 rd to the 5th years of Pharm-D,

making her mother, the 1st petitioner as co-applicant. As

against the loan application for ₹10.80 lakhs for three years,

the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P12 informed that the petitioners

are eligible for ₹7.27 lakhs as loan for the 4 th and 5th year of

the Course only and that the credit score of the co-applicant is

unsatisfactory.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Rinu S.

Aswan argued that application for education loan was made

for the 3rd to 5th year of the Course and the 2nd respondent-

Bank is declining loan for the 3rd year of the Course for no WP(C) No.25336/2020

conceivable reason. Non-santioning of eligible amount of loan

takes away valuable right of the 2nd petitioner.

5. The learned counsel further argued that disallowing

loan citing unsatisfactory credit score of the co-obligant, is

illegal and unsustainable. It is the paying capacity of the

student after completion of the Course, which is relevant in

determining repayment capacity of loanee. This Court has

held in Ext.P14 judgment that credit score of co-obligant is not

at all a deciding factor while considering application for

education loan. Ext.P12 communication is therefore not at all

acceptable or sustainable.

6. Sri. Jithesh Menon, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the 2nd respondent, argued that the 2 nd petitioner

has already completed her 3rd year of the Pharm-D Course

and hence can seek education loan only for the 4 th and 5th

years. As per Annexure-R2(a) certificate issued by the 3rd

respondent-Principal, the total fee for the said two years will

be only ₹7,65,470/- and the petitioners cannot aspire for a

larger amount as education loan.

WP(C) No.25336/2020

7. The learned Standing Counsel strenuously argued

that the 1st petitioner is a defaulter to three other credit

facilities extended and hence her credit score is

unsatisfactory. Ext.P14 judgment of a learned Single Judge of

this Court, was passed on a wrong appreciation and

understanding of an earlier judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.19248/2019 and hence need not be followed.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent and 3rd respondent and also the learned ASGI

representing the 1st respondent.

9. The Government of India has notified Ext.R2(b) the

Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme for Education Loans

(CGFSEL) on 16.09.2015. The maximum loan limit, without

any collateral security and third party guarantee, is ₹7.5 lakhs.

The Indian Banks' Association has made Model Education

Loans Scheme for pursuing higher education as per Ext.P13,

Clause 8 of of which would show that the Banks may sanction

loan above ₹7.5 lakhs subject to the condition that the WP(C) No.25336/2020

parent(s) should be joint borrower(s). The National Credit

Guarantee Company set up by the Government of India would

undertake to provide guarantee against default in repayment

of education loan extended under Ext.R2(b) Scheme by the

Lending Institutions, up to ₹7.5 lakhs.

10. The 2nd respondent is resisting sanction and

disbursement of education loan applied for by the petitioners

for two reasons. According to the 2nd respondent, the credit

score of the co-applicant (1 st petitioner herein) is less than

650. Secondly, the eligible loan amount is only 7.27 lakhs as

against the request of the petitioners for sanction of ₹10.80

lakhs.

11. As regards the stand of the 2nd respondent that the

credit score of 1st petitioner is unsatisfactory, a learned Single

Judge of this Court in Ext.P14 judgment in W.P.(C)

No.10968/2020 has held that unsatisfactory credit scores of

the parents of students cannot be a ground for rejecting an

education loan in view of the fact that the repayment capacity

of the student after education, should be the deciding factor as WP(C) No.25336/2020

per the Scheme. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent

would contend that Ext.P14 judgment was delivered on a

wrong appreciation of an earlier judgment of this Court in

another writ petition. However, since Ext.P14 judgment has

not been reversed by a Division Bench of this Court, I am

inclined to follow the law laid down in Ext.P14 judgment in

W.P.(C) No.10968/2020. It is therefore declared that the 2 nd

respondent cannot deny the loan applied for by the petitioners

on the ground of unsatisfactory credit score of the 1 st

petitioner.

12. As regards the amount of eligibility of the petitioner,

it may be noted that the petitioners have applied for loan for

the 3rd to 5th academic years of the 2 nd petitioner. The

contention of the 2nd respondent is that the 2nd petitioner has

already completed the third year and is in to the 4 th year and

therefore a loan cannot be extended to cover the educational

expenses of the third year. In this regard, it may be noted that

the petitioners had applied for the loan before the 4 th

academic year. Ext.P10 certificate could show that the 2 nd WP(C) No.25336/2020

petitioner has not paid fee payable in respect of the third year.

It is due to unavailability of funds to pay the fee for third year

also that the 2nd petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent.

In the circumstances, the 2 nd respondent will not be justified in

declining education loan to the petitioners to meet the

educational expenses of third year.

13. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd

respondent pointed out that in Ext.R2(c) application of the

petitioners, the loan required is shown as ₹7,50,000/-. The

counsel for the petitioners on the other hand, would submit

that the petitioners have correctly shown the total educational

expenses for the three years as 11,20,820/-. The figure

₹7,50,000/- in Ext.R2(c) was at the instance of the officials of

the 2nd respondent.

14. In view of the facts and reasons stated above, this

Court is of the firm opinion that the 2 nd respondent is bound to

consider the education loan application submitted by the

petitioners for the 3rd to 5th academic years of the petitioners

on merits and under Ext.R2(b) and Ext.P13 Schemes. WP(C) No.25336/2020

15. Accordingly, Ext.P12 is set aside. The 2nd

respondent is directed to consider the loan application of the

petitioners for an amount of ₹10.80 lakhs, in the light of the

observations made above. The petitioners shall be permitted

to make a fresh application or to make necessary corrections

in Ext.R2(c) application, if found necessary by the 2 nd

respondent.

16. Since the 3rd respondent submitted that without

payment of the third year's fees, they may not be able to

publish the third year results of the petitioners, the 2nd

respondent shall consider the education loan application

submitted by the petitioners with promptitude.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/18.01.2021 WP(C) No.25336/2020

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM OF THE PETITIONERS THROUGH VIDYA LAKSHMI PORTAL DATED 25.08.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARK STATEMENT ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EXAMINATION DATED NIL.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARK STATEMENT ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EXAMINATION DATED 16.06.2017.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STUDENT DETAILS OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.08.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT INSTITUTION DATED 12.04.2019.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT INSTITUTION DATED 25.09.2019.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN DETAILED VIEW OF REPURPOSED DRUGS, TRACKING OF VACCINES AND BRIEF VIEW ON PROPHYLACTIC NANO MEDICINES AS AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH AND PATIENT CARE FOR COVID 19 DATED NIL.

WP(C) No.25336/2020

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF MAIL COMMUNICATION ISSUED FROM INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHARMACEUTICALS TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 20.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P9            A TRUE COPY OF THE COURSE DETAILS
                      INDICATIVE    OF   FEES     AND    OTHER
                      EXPENDITURE   ISSUED   FROM    THE   3RD
                      RESPONDENT DATED 21.7.2017.

EXHIBIT P10           A TRUE COPY OF STUDENT PARTICULARS OF

THE 2ND PETITIONER WITH FEE STRUCTURE ISSUED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2020.

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF MAIL COMMUNICATION ISSUED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE FATHER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 30.09.2020.

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE MODEL EDUCATIONAL LOAN SCHEME FOR PURSUING HIGHER EDUCATION IN INDIA AND ABROAD ISSUED BY INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION DATED NIL.

EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 10968 OF 2020 DATED 03.07.2020.

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF EXAMINATION NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT INSTITUTION TO THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR THE THIRD YEAR PHARM.D EXAMINATION DATED 26.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM MANNAKUNNAM VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 16.04.2019.

EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF ENCUMBRANCE DATED 14.02.2020.

WP(C) No.25336/2020

EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 27.03.2019.

EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICER, MANAKUNNAM DATED 12.03.2020.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE-R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT INSTITUTION DATED 29-07-2019 ANNEXURE-R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DATED 16- 09-2015 ANNEXURE-R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

SR