Ext.R1(a) is the application made by the petitioner for an educational loan. Column 3 of the application form states that the amount of loan applied for is `4,00,000/-. Column 5 containing the repayment programme provides for repayment in 60 equated monthly installment of `6,700/- + interest from January, 2005. The loan was applied for, for the petitioner's higher studies in America for MBA and the petitioner's mother was the guarantor. Ext.R1(b) is the proposal form and Ext.R1(c) is the loan agreement between the parties. Accordingly, the loan was sanctioned and `3.64 lakhs was disbursed to the petitioner. Default was committed and finally Ext.P8 notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was issued. It is at that stage the writ petition was filed mainly contenting that what was applied for by the petitioner was `15,00,000/- and only `3.64 lakhs was disbursed, and that, as a result of non disbursement of the balance, despite having completed the course, fee was not WPC No. 15683/11 :2 : paid and that as a result of which the University in America withheld the certificates of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, she could not secure any employment. The relief sought for in this writ petition include a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to get the balance amount disbursed.
2. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit producing Exts.R1(a) to Ext.R1(c) and also Ext.R1(e), a letter of the petitioner's mother. Ext.R1(f) is the written statement filed by the petitioner's mother in OS No.409/06 before the Sub Court, Kottayam.
3. As already seen, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and her mother had applied for a loan of `15,00,000/- and that despite having sanctioned the full amount, only `3.64 lakhs was disbursed and that therefore the balance should be asked to be disbursed by the Bank. The specific case of the Bank is that the amount of loan applied for was `4,00,000/- and that the sanctioned amount of `3.64 lakhs has been disbursed to the petitioner. Ext.R1(a), (b) and (c) prima facie substantiate this contention of the Bank. Ext.R1(e) letter of the petitioner's mother also states that the education loan applied for was `4,00,000/-. In WPC No. 15683/11 :3 : the written statement also, statement to the similar effect has been made by the petitioner's mother. While the petitioner confirms her signature in Ext.R1(a) and (c), petitioner alleges that although her original application was for `15,00,000/-, most of the portions of the application form and the proposal form have been subsequently manipulated to suit the conversion now canvassed by the Bank. Similarly, in so far as Ext.R1(e) letter of her mother and Ext.R1(f) statement filed in the suit also is sought to be explained by the petitioner by contending that what is referred to therein is the first installment of loan received by the petitioner.
4. Essentially therefore, the question that emerges for consideration is whether the loan applied for by the petitioner was for `15,00,000/- as contended by the petitioner or whether it is `4,00,000/- as contended by the Bank. In my view, having regard to the nature of the documents that are available, it is totally a disputed question of fact, the resolution of which needs appreciation of evidence, which is both documental and oral. Such an adjudication is impermissible in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the remedy if at all lies before a Civil Court.
WPC No. 15683/11 :4 : In that view of the matter, leaving open all the contentions raised and without expressing anything on the merits, I dismiss this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to get the disputed question resolved in an appropriate suit.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp