Shaffique, J.
This Writ Appeal is filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition challenging the judgment dated 22.9.2014 in W.P(C).No.19723 of 2014 to the extent of directing the appellants to consider the petitioner's loan application under the SBT Career Loan Scheme by accepting the personal guarantee of the petitioner's father.
2. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent herein challenging the inaction on the part of the appellants in granting the education loan, which he had demanded. The petitioner was a person, who had undertaken a course in Aircraft Maintenance Engineering in the Sha-Shib Aviation Academy. According to the petitioner, the course is approved by the Director General of Civil Aviation, Government of India and therefore, he was entitled to disbursement of loan under the Model Educational Loan Scheme formulated by the Indian Banking Association. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by the Bank. Before this Court the Bank had taken a contention that since the course is not an approved course for which loan can be granted under the Model Educational Loan Scheme, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits of the said scheme. However, it was submitted that the appellant Bank has another scheme known as 'SBT Career Loan', which could be given to the petitioner subject to the petitioner complying with the requirements under the said scheme. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner's course will not fall under the Model Educational Loan Scheme and therefore, he is not entitled to claim any benefit under the said scheme. However, it was observed that since the appellant Bank had offered loan to the petitioner under the SBT Career Loan scheme, the petitioner can request for the same. The only contention urged by learned counsel for the appellants is with reference to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to accept the personal guarantee of the petitioner's father, who is a retired employee of the Cochin Port Trust as security for the said loan.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of the Model Educational Loan Scheme. But, in so far as the learned Single Judge had not accepted the said contention, we do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the said finding of fact. As far as the security in respect of the loan is concerned, if there is a scheme, definitely, the respondent Bank is liable to consider the loan application on the basis of the procedure prescribed under the scheme. However, it may not be proper for this Court to direct that the security of a particular person alone is sufficient. The petitioner, who applied for the loan can offer any form of security and it is for the Bank to either accept the said security or reject the same. The Bank can also call upon the party to provide security as provided under the scheme.
5. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge can be modified to the limited extent of excluding the direction to accept the personal guarantee of the petitioner's father. It shall be open for the petitioner to offer any form of security, which shall be considered by the Bank in accordance with law. The entire proceedings shall be completed within two weeks from the date of submitting the security.
With the above modification, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.
ASHOK BHUSHAN ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE vgs10/11/14 A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE