JUDGMENT :- 1. The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. He joined M.B.B.S. Course in Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Science and Research, Melmaruvathur during the academic year 2010-2011. The course is of five years. The first petitioner, being the father of the second petitioner, has applied for educational loan for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the second respondent Bank for his son to pursue the M.B.B.S. Course, wherein the second petitioner is the joint applicant. However, their request for educational loan was declined by the second respondent Bank vide letter dated 16.11.2010 stating as follows: "Applicant Mr.P.Krishnamurthy is a defaulter. Suit has been filed for Rs.6.44 lacs with District Court Dharmapuri for non repayment of the Dues for loan taking in the year 1998, the interest and credit worthiness of the borrower is not satisfactory." 2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the letter dated 16.11.2010 of the second respondent and also sought for a direction to the respondents to consider their educational loan application dated 18.10.2010. 3. The second respondent Bank filed a counter affidavit stating that the loan was refused, since the father of the second petitioner viz., the first petitioner herein, became a defaulter and hence they were constrained to file a Civil Suit against the first petitioner. 4. Heard both sides. 5. This Court pointed out that in the case of educational loan, the concerned party is a student, then recovery could be made against the student after he/she completed his/her studies and the educational loan could not be denied on the ground that the father/mother of the student is a defaulter, if security in the form of property is provided. It was also pointed out that the educational loan scheme provides for payment of loan upto Rs.4,00,000/- without any surety. 6. The learned counsel for the second respondent Bank fairly stated that in the event of the first petitioner provides security in the form of property and also third party guarantee to the satisfaction of the Bank, the second respondent Bank would consider the petitioners educational loan application for Rs.10,00,000/-. The learned counsel does not dispute that to avail loan to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/-, no guarantee is required. 7. The learned counsel does not dispute that to avail loan to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/-, no guarantee is required. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are willing to provide security in the form of property and also third party guarantee to the satisfaction of the second respondent Bank, since the first petitioner could not be a guarantor in the circumstances of the case. 8. In these circumstances, I am of the view that if the first petitioner produces security in the form of property as well as the third party guarantee to the satisfaction of the second respondent Bank, the second respondent Bank is bound to grant educational loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the second respondent Bank with proper security and guarantee to the satisfaction of the second respondent for the educational loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and the second respondent is directed to consider and decide on the same, within a period of two weeks after furnishing of security and guarantee. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.