JUDGMENT :- P. Devadass, J. This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated 06.06.2013 of the Writ Court in W.P.(MD).No.1487 of 2013, whereunder the second appellant/second respondent in the Writ Petition has been directed to sanction an educational loan of Rs.4,45,700/- to the first respondent/writ petitioner. 2. The writ petitioner lost her father untimely but not her will to pursue her higher studies. But, has no wherewithal to withstood the onslaughts of financial constraints. So, she set her eyes on the State Bank of India, Bodinayakanur. 3. Successfully she gained admission in the AICTE approved MCA course in Bannari Amman Institute of Technology, Sathyamangalam, a reputed educational institution. It is three years course, comprising 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. 4. According to the statement of expenditure issued by the said educational institution dated 25.08.2012, the entire expenditure comes to Rs.4,45,700/-. As she has no means to meet this much expenditure, on 03.10.2012, she sought for educational loan from the second appellant. There was long parleys. Ultimately, she was sanctioned only Rs.1,20,339/-. Thus, she knocked the doors of the Writ Court filing W.P.(MD)No.1487 of 2013. 5. The Writ Court coming to the conclusion that since Rs.4,45,700/- as certified by the educational institution is absolutely necessary for her to complete the full course, directed the second appellant to sanction this amount within ten days of receipt of its order. This is being challenged by the Bank. 6. According to Mr.S.Sethuraman, learned Counsel for the appellants, on scanning the expenditure statement dated 25.08.2012, in the light of bank's instructions, it had to sanction a lesser amount than the amount mentioned in the said certificate. The learned counsel added that even the Fee Fixing Committee headed by a retired Hon'ble Judge of this Court, fixed lesser amounts towards tuition fees for various courses in educational institutions. 7. However, according to Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner if this kind of attitude is taken by a nationalised bank, the purpose behind the scheme to support the educational needs of economically disadvantaged people will be thwarted. It is loan. It is not ex gratia. It is repayable. In these matters, the public sector banks shall not act like private bankers and they must alive to the ground reality. 8. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the entire records and also the impugned order of the Writ Court. 9. It is loan. It is not ex gratia. It is repayable. In these matters, the public sector banks shall not act like private bankers and they must alive to the ground reality. 8. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the entire records and also the impugned order of the Writ Court. 9. The writ petitioner is economically disadvantaged. Yet, not so, in her academic pursuit. To support such persons, through nationalised banks, Government of India launched schemes providing educational loans. It is not free. It is repayable with interest, not now, but at a later point of time, of course, at reduced rate of interest. The idea is to finance their educational career. It is a social commitment for the upliftment of weaker, vulnerable and other sections of the society. It is a social welfare measure. In a way, it is some sort of social banking. If it is only partial, then it is of no use. The purpose will not be achieved. The public sector banks and other financial institutions must realise this. They can afford to be liberal in sanctioning educational loans covering the genuine, reasonable and justified educational expenses and relieve the students and their parents from pressing financial crisis. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the educational institutions are fleecing the students and their parents under various captions and Banks cannot be asked to lend finance to these unjustified demands. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner is unable to countenance this. 11. In the memorandum of appeal, in para 5, based on the educational institution's certificate dated 25.08.2012, various items of expenditure for the entire three years has been totalled at Rs.4,45,700/-. In this, Rs.45,200/- per year and Rs.1,35,600/- for three years, has been catalogued under “other miscellaneous expenses”. W hen we look at the certificate of the educational institution, dated 25.08.2012, these miscellaneous items found expressed in different forms. Bank cannot be asked to lend finance to these items also. Deducting this Rs.1,35,600/-, the balance comes to Rs.3,10,100/-. This much amount is absolutely necessary for her to complete the full course. This has to be necessarily sanctioned by the bank. 12. For each year, she need a specified amount. This is self-evident in the expenditure certificate dated 25.08.2012. Bank cannot be asked to lend finance to these items also. Deducting this Rs.1,35,600/-, the balance comes to Rs.3,10,100/-. This much amount is absolutely necessary for her to complete the full course. This has to be necessarily sanctioned by the bank. 12. For each year, she need a specified amount. This is self-evident in the expenditure certificate dated 25.08.2012. In each year, the miscellaneous expenses of Rs.45,200/-(Rs.45,200 x 3 = Rs.1,35,600/-) has to be deducted and at the appropriate time, the balance has to be disbursed. 13. It is to be noted that now she is in the second year of the course. The second year fees has to be paid before 26.06.2013. She has already paid her first year fees, as she has to pay it within stipulate time without waiting for loan disbursement by the Bank, or else she will lose her admission itself. Necessarily she should have arranged that amount, from other sources. She sought loan for first year also. So, as per the prevailing bank practice for educational loan, the first year expenditure amount within the permissible limits already indicated by us has to be reimbursed to her on production of necessary bills. 14. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part. The order of Writ Court is modified. The second appellant is directed to sanction educational loan of Rs.3,10,100/- to the first respondent/petitioner. Out of that, the amount already paid for the first year has to be reimbursed to the petitioner on production of bills. For the present second year, tuition fees and other college fees shall be paid to the educational institution, the balance shall be disbursed to the petitioner. At the appropriate time, the same shall be the pattern for the disbursement for the third year. The disbursement to the educational institution for the current year shall be made on or before 26.06.2013. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.