Aayush Raj, aged 26 years, S/o Ravi Ranjan Prasad Sinha, resident of C/o Bhai v. 1. Bank of India through it’s Chairman having it’s head office at STAR House
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C ) No. 907 of 2018 Aayush Raj, aged 26 years, S/o Ravi Ranjan Prasad Sinha, resident of C/o Bhai Jee Scent Wale, H/o Dr. K. Thakur, 2nd Floor, Ashok Nagar, Pokharia, P.O., P.S.- & Dist.- Begusarai .......... Petitioner Versus 1. Bank of India through it’s Chairman having it’s head office at STAR House, C-5, “G Block”, P.O. and P.S- Bandra (East) Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai (Maharastra) 2. Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Pradhan Tower, Mahatma Gandhi Main Road, P.O- GPO, P.S.- Chutia, Dist.- Ranchi 3. Chief Manager, Bank of India, Buty More Branch, Pitambara Palace, Krishna Chowk, P.O. & P.S.- Buty, Dist.- Ranchi ........... Respondents For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha , Adv. : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the application of the petitioner made on 21.12.2017, making the petitioner entitled to the benefit of the Central Scheme to provide interest subsidy, herein after referred to as ‘CSIS’ and directing the respondents to bear any loss in the nature of interest against the education loan during moratorium period. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the brief facts of the case is that the petitioner availed educational 1 W.P.(C) No. 907 of 2018 loan for pursuing higher education and the loan was sanctioned on 07.09.2011 and the disbursement began in January 2012 and the moratorium period of the loan was from the date of disbursement of loan to June 2016. The Government of India launched the CSIS in the year 2009. The Ministry of HRD, government of India, vide its letter dated 25.05.2010, requested all the scheduled banks to adopt and implement the scheme i.e. CSIS. The respondent bank did not inform the petitioner of any such beneficial scheme at the time of availing / sanction of loan or initial disbursement from the loan account. In the year 2013, the bank solicited income certificate from the petitioner. The income certificate was duly submitted in July, 2013. 4.
Legal Reasoning
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was fully eligible to get the subsidy to the extent of 100% under the CSIS but the bank for the reasons best known to it, chose not to claim the interest subsidy for the period from 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. In the year 2015, the Government of India, announced the reopening of the portal for claiming unclaimed interest subsidy for the period 2009-2014 to all banks and the portal was opened from 07.09.2015 to 10.10.2015. It is next submitted that respondent failed to claim the unclaimed amount of interest subsidy on behalf of the petitioner during those period also. In the year 2016, the petitioner made enquiries from the bank regarding the EMI to be repaid against the loan availed. The petitioner claimed interest subsidy which was refused by the respondent bank vide its communication dated 04.01.2017 and to cover up its folly, the bank is resorting to unfounded excuses that the required data was not available for feeding in system, though the bank granted interest subsidy under CSIS from financial year 2013-14; basing upon the same documents including income certificate, which was within the 2 W.P.(C) No. 907 of 2018 possession of the bank since July 2013. It is further pleaded in the writ petition that CSIS, is provided to a student studying in a recognised technical / professional courses, after class XII, in India in educational institutions established by Acts of Parliament, other institutions recognized by the concerned statutory bodies. It is next contended that as per the CSIS, it was the duty and responsibility of the bank to implement the scheme and because of the laches on the part of the bank, the unclaimed interest cannot be claimed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the income certificate dated 17.07.2013, though it has not been mentioned anywhere therein, is a certificate of financial year 2012-13, hence, the bank ought to have claimed the interest subsidy upon that, even for the financial year 2011-12, as the father of the petitioner cannot be expected to be having any income more than that was earned in 2012-13, hence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer as
Decision
made in the writ petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents by drawing attention of the court to page 30 of the writ petition, which is annexures 2, and which is the document of the Central Scheme to provide Interest Subsidy (CSIS) for the period of moratorium on educational loans, submitted that the benefits of the scheme is applicable to those students belonging to economically weaker sections with an annual gross parental / family income upper limits of Rs. 4.5 lakhs per year from all sources and income proof shall be required from the student from such public authorities which are authorised by the State Governments for certification of income status for this scheme, including central and state sector schemes. As the petitioner could not produce the income proof from public authorities which are authorised by the State Government for certification of 3 W.P.(C) No. 907 of 2018 the income status for the scheme for the period 2011-12 and 2012-13 despite request dated 16.04.2012 which is annexed to the supplementary counter affidavit. The respondent bank could not claim the interest subsidy, hence there are no laches on the part of the respondents, hence, it is submitted that this writ petition, being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that for availing the CSIS, the income proof of students from such public authorities which are authorised by the State Governments for certification of income status for this scheme, is a sine qua non. The undisputed fact remains that though the petitioner for the first time, intimated by the respondent bank to produce the income certificate on 16.04.2012 but the petitioner for the reasons best known to him, produced the income certificate, only of dated 17.07.2013; obviously after that date but did not produce income certificate of any day prior to that and no reasons has been assigned by the petitioner on this writ petition, as to what made the petitioner not to procure an income certificate, which is a sine qua non for the CSIS on any date between 16.04.2012 to 17.07.2013. Nor there is any averment as to what made the petitioner, not to submit the income certificate speciality mentioning that the same is the income certificate for the period 2011-12 and 2012-13. 7. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the income certificate issued on 17.07.2013, is a certificate which shows the income of the father of the petitioner, of financial year 2012-13 is concerned, this court do not find any merit in the said submission because, firstly, nowhere, in the certificate, it has been mentioned that the income of the person, in whose favour the certificate is issued, was for the financial 4 W.P.(C) No. 907 of 2018 year 2012-13. Since the certificate shows that the annual income of the petitioner, so at best, it can be termed that the same shows the income of the person, in whose favour the income certificate was issued, from 18.07.2012 to 13.07.2013 but it cannot be stretched to any day anterior to 18.07.2012. Thus, this do not find any fault on the part of the respondent by not recognising the income certificate dated 13.07.2013 to be the income certificate for the year financial year 2012-13, in the absence of any such averment in the said certificate, the copy of which has been annexed with this writ petition. 8. Under such circumstances, as undisputedly, the CSIS required the income proof from public authorities authorised by the State Governments for certification of income status and there is no material in the record, to suggests that the petitioner produced the income proof for the financial year 2011-12 and 2012-13 before the respondent, nor any such document has been annexed with this writ petition, hence, this court is of the considered view that respondent bank has not committed any illegality by not claiming unclaimed interest in the year 2015 when the portal was open, as for claiming such unclaimed interest; the income certificate for the financial year 2011-12 and 2012-13 was essential. Thus, in absence of such essential document being the income proof of the petitioner for the financial year 2011-12 and 2012-13, this court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 30th April, 2024 Smita /AFR 5 W.P.(C) No. 907 of 2018