Prabhu Dayal Prasad vs The Union Of India, Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4178 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3023 of 2017
                                            In
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18752 of 2014
     ======================================================

Prabhu Dayal Prasad S/o Late Radha Krishna Prasadm, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Sitamarhi, P.O. P.S.- Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Union of India, Through Secretary Mr. Ashok Lavasa, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, N

2. Vinay Srivastava, Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delh

3. The State of Bihar.

4. Rakesh Sharma, Chairman, Canara Bank, Banglore.

5. K.V. Shaji, General Manager, Principal Grievance Redressal Cell, Bangalore.

6. M.H. Khan, Nodal Officer, Circle Officer Canara Bank, Patna.

7. S.N. Yadav, Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Sitamarhi.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vishal Saurabh, Advocate.

     For the U.O.I.           :       Mrs. Kanak Verma, CGC.
     For the Canara Bank      :       Mr. Ratnesh Nandan Sinha, Advocate.

For the Respondent Nos.4 to 7: Mr. Purusotam Prasad, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parijat Saurav, AC to AAG-13. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 31-08-2023

Heard Mr. Vishal Saurabh, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mrs. Kanak Verma, learned counsel for the

respondent Union of India, Mr. Ratnesh Nandan Sinha,

learned counsel for the respondent Canara Bank, Mr.

Purusotam Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 to

7 and Mr. Parijat Saurav, learned AC to AAG-13 for the State.

2. The petitioner by filing the present writ Patna High Court MJC No.3023 of 2017 dt.31-08-2023

application is seeking initiation of a contempt proceeding

against the Official Respondents for deliberately violating the

order dated 23.06.2017 passed in CWJC No.18752 of 2014.

3. It is vehemently submitted that the entitlement of

the petitioner has not been provided in terms of the order of

this Court, the relevant portion thereof is noted herein after:-

" In that view of the matter, all the Banks are directed to examine their respective cases afresh and take necessary action either by returning the extra payment made by the petitioners by way of interest or adjust the same in the future outstanding dues.

It goes without saying that the benefit arising from the Central Government Scheme and the liability will be bone by the Central Government with respect to interest which I earned on principal amount up to 31 st December, 2013.

Let this order be complied by all the Banks within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order."

4. Mr. Sinha, by referring to the show cause filed on

behalf of the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 7 submitted that son of

the petitioner has availed eduction loan for Rs.3,76,000/- out

of which Rs.3,32,890/- has been disbursed. It is made clear

that the aforesaid loan was repayable in 7 years for persuing Patna High Court MJC No.3023 of 2017 dt.31-08-2023

four years B E Bio Technology Course. The duration of this

course was from 01.07.2007 to 30.06.2011. He further drew

the attention of this Court to the Circular No. 128 of 2014,

issued in the matter of providing interest subsidy on Education

Loan. He further submits that under the Scheme in order to

provide reliefs to the students, who were sanctioned/disbursed

education loan up to 31.03.2009 and their outstanding as on

31.12.2013 will be entitled for interest subsidy on Education

Loan. However, if any student has claimed subsidy for any

eligible course after 01.04.2009, then he is not eligible under

this scheme. As the petitioner has availed subsidy under the

existing scheme earlier hence is not entitled to get benefit on

interest subsidy on the basis of second Circular. He further

clarify that the letter dated 25.06.2014 issued by the Bank

Authority to the writ petitioner, upon which the petitioner is

harping upon, was mistakenly issued as the amount of interest

mentioned therein was wrongly calculated on the basis of

second Circular No.128/2014 dated 05.03.2014, which is not

applicable in the present loan account.

5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that it is the bank, itself, who has issued the letter

showing the entitlement of the petitioner to the tune of Patna High Court MJC No.3023 of 2017 dt.31-08-2023

Rs.2,55,429/- and without there being any basis, it is resiling

from their own statement as contained in Annexure-3.

6. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the

parties and taking note of the materials brought on record as

also the averments made in the show cause, discussed

hereinabove, the present contempt petition stands disposed of.

7. It is needles to say that if the petitioner has any

grievance with regard to the calculation made by the Bank, he

has remedy to assail the same in an appropriate proceeding.

(Harish Kumar, J) manoj/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          05.09.2023
Transmission Date       NA