Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)Deshapriya Park Branch vs Miss Sudeshna Banik And Others on 5 August, 2022Author:Prakash ShrivastavaBench:Prakash Shrivastava3   05.08.2022\n    PA(RB)\n\n\n\n                                    MAT 1142 of 2022\n                                         With\n                                     CAN 1 of 2022\n\n                      The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, PBB\n                                Deshapriya Park Branch\n                                          Vs.\n                            Miss Sudeshna Banik and Others\n\n\n                          Mr. Subrata Kumar Sinha\n                          Mr. Debashis Saha\n                          Ms. Dipika Basu\n                                           ... for the appellant\n                          Ms. Sudeshna Banik\n                                           ... respondent no. 1-in-personMr. Asish Kumar Guha\n                          Mr. Naren Ghosh Dastidar\n                                           ... for the State\n                          Mr. Pralay Kar\n                          Ms. Debasree Dhamali\n                                           ... for the respondent no.3\n                          Ms. Soni Ojha\n                          Ms. Sambrita B. Chatterjee\n                                           ... for the respondent no. 4\n\n\n                       This appeal, at the instance of the respondent\n\n                 Bank, is directed against the order of the learned Single\n\n                 Judge dated 7th of July, 2022, whereby WPA 9696 of\n\n                 2022 filed by the respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) has\n\n                 been allowed and the appellant Bank has been directed\n\n                 to process the loan and disburse the loan amount\n\n                 applied for by the writ petitioner within two weeks.The respondent no. 1, writ petitioner, had filed the2writ petition with the plea that in terms of the Student\n\nCredit Card Scheme of the State published in the gazette\n\nnotification dated 30th of June, 2021, the writ petitioner\n\nwas entitled for financial assistance with the maximum\n\nlimit of Rs. 10 lakhs at nominal rate of 4 % simple\n\ninterest rate per annum. The petitioner after completing\n\nBachelor of Arts (in sustainable product design) had\n\napplied for pursuing Masters Degree in Politics of\n\nDevelopment in Royal Holloway, University of London\n\nwhere she was selected and admitted for the academic\n\nyear, 2021-22 and the petitioner had deposited Rs. 17\n\nlakhs (approx.) for tuition fees and on account of\n\nmiscellaneous       charges   and    was   attending   classes\n\nvirtually on account of covid pandemic. Further case of\n\nthe petitioner was that since now the normalcy has\n\nreturned, the University was insisting attendance of\n\nclasses by physical presence mode by being on campus.\n\nHence, now the petitioner needs financial support under\n\nthe West Bengal Student Credit Card Scheme, therefore,\n\nshe had registered her name in the designated portal on\n\n27th of December, 2021 by choosing Punjab National\n\nBank,    a   listed      Financial    Institution/Bank     for\n\ndisbursement of the financial assistance. Thereafter, the\n\npetitioner had submitted the revised application through\n\nWest Bengal Portal on 12th of April, 2022 with the State\n\nBank of India. Though the petitioner was eligible, the3appellant, State Bank of India, had not extended the\n\nfinancial assistance, therefore, a prayer was made in the\n\nwrit petition seeking a mandamus to the appellant Bank\n\nto disburse the required loan amount in terms of the\n\napplication.Learned Single Judge has considered the Scheme\n\nand has noted that the petitioner will pay back the loan\n\namount under Clauses 11 and 12 of the Scheme and\n\nthat the petitioner's father, the co-borrower, has the\n\nfinancial means to pay back the loan under the terms of\n\nthe Scheme and also recorded the stand of the State that\n\nthe State shall stand as guarantor for the loan and will\n\nenter into separate agreement with the Bank in this\n\nregard as provided under Clause 8 of the Scheme.In view of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge\n\nhas allowed the petition and had directed the appellant\n\nBank to process the loan and disburse the loan amount\n\napplied by the petitioner.Submission     of   the   learned   counsel   for   the\n\nappellant is that the State only extends guarantee upto\n\nRs. 10 lakhs but if the borrower does not pay the\n\nprincipal amount of Rs. 10 lakhs, then with interest the\n\namount will exceed to more than Rs. 15 lakhs and\n\ntherefore, the balance amount of above Rs. 10 lakhs\n\nremains unsecured. He further submitted that the co-\n\nborrower, i.e., the father of the writ petitioner had taken4as many as fourteen loans, some of which were settled in\n\nOTS or written off, therefore, his credit score is very low\n\nand in these circumstances, the Bank cannot extend the\n\nfinancial limit of Rs. 10 lakhs to the writ petitioner\n\nputting the public money in jeopardy as the financial\n\nassistance is without any collateral security.Learned counsel for the State has submitted that\n\nthe Bank is only required to act on the basis of the\n\napplication forwarded by the State for extending the\n\nfinancial assistance and if the amount is not repaid,\n\nthen the Bank has option to take legal action.Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 (writ\n\npetitioner) has supported the impugned order and has\n\nsubmitted that the credit score of the petitioner's father\n\nwas gradually increasing and that out of 14 accounts, in\n\n9 accounts, there is NIL balance and there is no amount\n\ndue and payable by the petitioner's father as on today.\n\nShe has further submitted that the physical classes have\n\nstarted, therefore, now the petitioner is required to go\n\nand attend the classes and financial assistance is\n\nnecessary.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties\n\nand perused the record. The Government of West Bengal,\n\nHigher Education Department vide notification dated\n\n30th of June, 2021 had notified the West Bengal Student\n\nCredit Card Scheme. In terms of the said Scheme, the5eligible candidate is required to apply to the Higher\n\nEducation       Department,          which      after    examining      the\n\napplication, is to forward it to the Bank for sanction. The\n\nmaximum amount of loan available under the Scheme is\n\nRs. 10 lakhs at 4 % simple rate of interest per annum,\n\nafter   interest        subvention.      The     loan     application    is\n\nrequired to be submitted by the student and the\n\nparent/legal guardian as co-borrower. The Scheme also\n\nprovides      for   mode        of   disbursement         and    that the\n\nmoratorium or repayment holiday of year and repayment\n\nperiod of 15 years.The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated\n\n31st of December, 2021 is entered into between the\n\ncompetent authority of the State with the appellant SBI\n\nwhereby the State has undertaken in relation to loan up\n\nto Rs. 10 lakhs and the maximum loan limit under the\n\nScheme is reiterated to be Rs. 10 lakhs without collateral\n\nsecurities. The Bank is required to extend financial\n\nassistance to eligible borrower without any collateral\n\nsecurity and/or third party guarantee. In terms of\n\nClause 8 of the MoU, the Bank is entitled to evaluate and\n\nsanction loans in accordance with the Scheme for\n\npursuing studies in India and abroad and conduct the\n\naccounts       of       the   borrowers      with       normal    banking\n\nprudence and due diligence.The     record        reflects   that    the     application    for6financial assistance under the Scheme was made by the\n\nwrit petitioner on 12th of April, 2022 whereas the\n\nduration of the MA Politics of Development Course joined\n\nby the writ petitioner was 12 months, from 20th of\n\nSeptember, 2021. It is undisputed before this Court that\n\nthe course will be over somewhere around 19th of\n\nSeptember, 2022. The documents submitted by the\n\npetitioner further reveals that the petitioner has already\n\npaid the tuition fee of Rs. 15,78,667.89 up to 12 of April,\n\n2022 and the balance amount payable is 2000.61GBP. It\n\nis also undisputed before this Court that the petitioner\n\nwas pursuing studies till now through online mode and\n\nshe intends to visit the Royal Holloway, University of\n\nLondon for attending the remaining about less than 2\n\nmonths period of course. There is nothing on record that\n\nthe petitioner will be required to pay the hostel charges\n\nfor the entire period of 1 year though she will be staying\n\nin the hostel for only 2 months or less. The submission\n\nof learned counsel for the appellant is that in terms of\n\nthe order of learned Single Judge and application of the\n\npetitioner, the appellant is required to disburse the\n\nentire amount in the writ petitioner's account, whereas\n\nthe amount is payable to the institution by the Bank. In\n\nthis regard, Clause 10 of the Scheme notified on 30th of\n\nJune, 2021 relating to mode of disbursement is relevant\n\nwhich is provided as under:7"10. Mode of Disbursement:-1. The amount of loan will be credited\n              directly to the designated account of the\n              Institution concerned in case of payment\n              of course fees and other fees related to the\n              Institution.2. The amount of loan will be credited to the\n              student's Bank account for purchasing of\n              Computer/Laptop/books/stationeries/livi\n              ng expenses etc."The Scheme also defines the living expenses as\n\nunder:"2. (h) "Living expenses" means an expense\n      incurred by a student for living outside from his\n      residence during the course of study."Hence, the petitioner is entitled to receive financial\n\nassistance strictly in terms of the Scheme, therefore, the\n\nappellant Bank is directed to process the application of\n\nthe writ petitioner as per the terms of the Scheme and\n\nsanction and disburse the amount keeping in view\n\nClauses 2(h) and 10 of the Scheme.In view of the above, we need not go into the issue\n\nof credit worthiness of the father of the writ petitioner\n\nbecause now, the requisite amount in terms of the\n\nScheme is expected to be below Rs. 10 lakhs. We also\n\nfind that the learned Single Judge has duly considered\n\nall the relevant aspects of the matter and has rightly\n\nissued a direction to the Bank to disburse the amount,\n\nhowever, the amount is now required to be disbursed as\n\nper the Scheme specially taking into account the Clauses8noted above.The record further reflects that the appellant\n\nBank, after the order of the learned Single Judge had\n\nissued the loan sanction letter dated 16th of July, 2022\n\nbut the submission of learned counsel for the appellant\n\nis that under the threat of contempt, the said sanction\n\nletter was issued, therefore, it was kept in abeyance by\n\nthe communication dated 19th of July, 2022.We accordingly dispose of the present appeal and\n\ndirect the appellant Bank to do the needful for\n\nsanctioning the loan amount to the respondent (writ\n\npetitioner) within 1 week from today.(Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)