ORDER : K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the respondent denying the educational loan to the petitioner on the ground that there is a over due from the father of the petitioner in respect of a credit facility availed from another financial institution. 2. The petitioner, after completion of her Higher Secondary Education, joined the Engineering Course at Sri Krishna College of Engineering and Technology (Autonomous) Sugunapuram, Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore District. She applied for educational loan with the respondent bank making her father as a co-applicant. The respondent bank rejected her application only on the ground that there is a over due from her father, who availed some credit facility in another financial institution, to the tune of Rs. 4,60,997/- as per the report submitted by CIBIL. 3. This writ petition is filed by raising very many grounds upon which, the main ground is to the effect that return of the petitioner's application on the ground that the co-applicant, namely, petitioner's father, is a defaulter, is legally unsustainable. 4. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent, wherein the reason stated in the impugned order is reiterated to justify the rejection. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court in similar matters favouring the petitioner's case by holding that educational loan application cannot be rejected only on the reason that co-applicant is a defaulter. In support of such contention, the learned counsel relied on an unreported decision made in W.P. No. 6286 of 2011 dated 18.08.2011 and a decision reported in 2011 Writ L.R. 765 (R. Sahana v. The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce and Others). 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submitted that as the co-applicant, namely, father of the petitioner is a defaulter, the rejection order was rightly passed. 7. It is seen that the issue involved in this case has already been considered and decided by this Court in the above referred decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In W.P. No. 6286 of 2011 dated 18.08.2011, the learned single Judge, after following the decision made and reported in 2011 Writ L.R. 765 (cited supra) has observed at paragraph 11 to 13 as follows:- "11. In W.P. No. 6286 of 2011 dated 18.08.2011, the learned single Judge, after following the decision made and reported in 2011 Writ L.R. 765 (cited supra) has observed at paragraph 11 to 13 as follows:- "11. Admittedly, the principal borrower insofar as the education loan is concerned is the student, who avails the loan. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the petitioner, who has to repay the loan after the completion of her course of study and the bank gives moratorium for the repayment of the loan. Therefore, it is contended that the position of the co-obligant/co-borrower is hardly a factor, which could be basis for rejection of an application. Identical issue as in this case came up for consideration before this Court in W.P. No. 12432 of 2011 [R. Sahana v. The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce and Others] and the learned Judge (Justice D. Hariparanthaman), while considering the similar case, where the student's father was a defaulter in respect of a loan availed by him, after analysing the scheme relating to the education loan, which was produced by the respondent bank therein held as follows:- "10. According to the Bank, since the petitioner's parents became defaulters and their loan accounts became NPA, the Bank could not disburse the educational loan to the petitioner. 11. In my view, the educational loan could not come within the purview of the loan that is mentioned in the Loan Policy Review and Modification (2009-10) produced by the Respondents Bank. If the petitioner's parents want the disbursal of any loan amount even after they became defaulters, the Bank could refuse to disburse the amount. In this case, it is not the request of the petitioner to disburse the loan to her parents. On the other hand, it is her case that the sanctioned educational loan should be disbursed to her and the same cannot be stopped citing that her parents became defaulters. In my view, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded and the respondents Bank could not stop the educational loan that too for the final year. If the arguments of the Bank is accepted, the same could not advance the object of the scheme providing assistance by way of educational loan. In my view, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded and the respondents Bank could not stop the educational loan that too for the final year. If the arguments of the Bank is accepted, the same could not advance the object of the scheme providing assistance by way of educational loan. If the Bank refuses to disburse the loan for the 4th year, that would frustrate the very purpose of the scheme and if the petitioner discontinues her studies at the final year, the loan amount so far paid without security could become sticky. Even for the interest of the Bank, they should see that the loanee student completes education so that the Bank could get back the loan advanced. Though the parents are to be made as co-applicants, it is stated in the scheme that irrespective of their means, loan upto Rs. 4,00,000/- should be sanctioned without any security. Further, as per the scheme, repayment has to be made by the petitioner student. Repayment clause states that repayment has to be made twelve months after completion of the course or six months after getting job, whichever is earlier. The clause relevant to the repayment is extracted hereunder: "Repayment in 84 months in Equated Monthly Instalments. Moratorium Period 12 months after completion of the course or 6 months after getting the job, whichever is earlier. Regional Heads are empowered to permit extension in study period upto a maximum of two years, in cases where the student is not able to complete the course/study for reasons beyond his/her control after examining the facts and genuineness of the case. Note: In the cases where loan has been sanctioned for the two/dual courses, moratorium period may be considered after completion of the studies as per the extant guidelines." 12. Therefore, the Bank is not justified in refusing to disburse loan to the petitioner for the final year on the ground that her parents became defaulters. Hence, I am inclined to direct the respondent Bank, to forthwith disburse of the loan to the 3rd respondent college payable for the final year B.Tech Course of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs." 12. Hence, I am inclined to direct the respondent Bank, to forthwith disburse of the loan to the 3rd respondent college payable for the final year B.Tech Course of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs." 12. In the instant case, it is stated that the petitioner has been able to remit the fee for the first year and if the second year fee is not remitted the petitioner would not be allowed to continue the course. In my view, the bank should adopt a more reasonable and pragmatic approach to the entire issue bearing in mind that the repayment shall be made by the student concerned, who avails loan and such repayment commences after completion of her course of study. Further, it is seen that though the parents of the loanee student is made as co-obicant to the loan, no security is required for loans upto Rs. 4,00,000/-. Therefore, this is a fit case, where the respondent bank should be directed to sanction the loan sought for by the petitioner on the usual terms and conditions. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application to the respondent bank, requesting for education loan enclosing the requisite particulars. On such submission, the same shall be considered and the loan be sanctioned by the respondent bank, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the submission of the application by the petitioner. No costs." 8. Perusal of the above decision would show that the reason assigned in the impugned order cannot be sustained as such reason goes against the above-said ruling of this Court. Therefore, I find every justification in allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the respondent bank is directed to sanction educational loan to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Appeal dismissed.