JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. The common judgment dated 21.12.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge, allowing WP(C) Nos.15376/2022 and 25719/2022, is the subject matter of challenge in these intra court appeals filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 2. The appellants in WA No.248/2023 are respondents 3 to 6 and the additional 8th respondent in WP(C) No.15376/2022. Respondents 1 to 5 are the writ petitioners and respondents 6 to 8 are respondents 1, 2 & 7 in WP(C) No.15376/2022. 3. The appellants in WA No.151/2023 are respondents 3 to 5 in WP(C) No.25719/2022. Respondents 1 to 4 are the writ petitioners and respondents 5 to 7 are respondents 1, 2 & 6 in WP(C) No.25719/2022. 4. The appellants in both appeals are hereinafter referred to as, “the Bank”. The writ petitioners in both the writ petitions, who are respondents 1 to 5 in WA No.248/2023 and respondents 1 to 4 in WA No.151/2023, are hereinafter referred to as, “the party respondents”. 5. The party respondents are pursuing full time course and Post Graduate Programme in Management (PGDM) in the Sadanam Institute of Commerce and Management Studies in Palakkad District. They were admitted to the course on the basis of All India MAT/KMAT/CAT scores apart from the entrance/screening procedure by conducting attitude tests, group discussion and interview. The total fee for the course is Rs.3,75,000/-. Since they are from financially poor families, for pursuing the education, they applied for educational loan from the appellants/respondent bank. It was alleged that though an amount of Rs.3,75,000/-was applied for by the party respondents, the Bank sanctioned only a lesser amount after deducting the margin amount. Hence, they have approached this Court seeking for a direction to disburse the full amount of Rs.3,75,000/- applied for by them as education loan. 6. The Bank filed a statement, stating that deduction from the sanctioned amount is not towards margin money, but, it is strictly in accordance with the Model Education Loan Scheme for pursuing higher education in India and abroad published by the Indian Bank Association and the Master Circular issued by the bank adopting the Scheme. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition directing the Bank to disburse the balance amount due towards the education loan of Rs.4,00,000/-sanctioned to the party respondents. It is challenging this, the Bank has come up in appeal. 7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition directing the Bank to disburse the balance amount due towards the education loan of Rs.4,00,000/-sanctioned to the party respondents. It is challenging this, the Bank has come up in appeal. 7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, the learned counsel for party respondents, and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted that the margin money or loan margin is the portion of the loan, which is to be paid by the students towards own contribution while availing an educational loan. It was further submitted that the Bank has not insisted on any margin money since the educational loan applied for by the party respondents was below Rs.4,00,000/-. It was also submitted that the Bank has to abide by the guidelines issued by he Reserve Bank of India being statutory in nature that has made the capping of 20% for each segment of the fees based on the Model Education Loan Scheme which is issued as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and Government of India. 9. The learned counsel for the party respondents submitted that the Bank is duty bound to disburse the entire amount sanctioned and they are not entitled to deduct any amount towards margin money or loan margin since the loan amount applied was below Rs.4,00,000/-. 10. During the time of hearing of the appeal, the Bank was directed to produce the loan application as well as the sanction advice. The Bank produced Annexures A1 to A10 along with IA No.2/2023 in WA No.248/2023 and Annexures A1 to A8 along with IA No.1/2023 in WA No.151/2023, which are the loan applications submitted by the party respondents and the sanction memoranda of the Bank. 11. On a perusal of Annexures A1 to A10 in WA No.248/2023, it is seen that as per Annex.A1 loan application, the 1st party respondent has applied for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-and as per Annex.A2 sanction memorandum, Rs.3,50,000/-was sanctioned to him by the Bank. Annex.A3 is the loan application submitted by the 2nd party respondent for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-and as per Annex.A4 sanction memorandum, Rs.3,00,000/-was sanctioned to him. Annex.A3 is the loan application submitted by the 2nd party respondent for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-and as per Annex.A4 sanction memorandum, Rs.3,00,000/-was sanctioned to him. Similarly, Annex.A5 loan application submitted by the 3rd party respondent reveals that she had applied for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-and the said amount of Rs.3,50,000/-was sanctioned as per Annex.A6 sanction memorandum. Annex.A7 loan application of the 4th party respondent reveals that she had applied for Rs.3,75,000/-and as per Annex.A8 sanction memorandum, the said amount of Rs.3,75,000/-was sanctioned. Annex.A9 is the loan application submitted by the 5th party respondent for an amount of Rs.3,75,000/-and as per Annex.A10 sanction memorandum, the said amount was sanctioned. 12. On going through the Annexures A1 to A8 in WA No.151/2023, it is seen that as per Annex.A1 loan application, the 1st party respondent has applied for an amount of Rs.3,75,000/-and as per Annex.A2 sanction memorandum, an amount of Rs.3,30,000/-was sanctioned to him by the Bank. Annex.A3 is the loan application submitted by the 2nd party respondent for an amount of Rs.3,30,000/-and as per Annex.A4 sanction memorandum, the said amount of Rs.3,30,000/-was sanctioned to her. Similarly, Annex.A5 loan application submitted by the 3rd party respondent reveals that she had applied for an amount of Rs.3,30,000/-and the said amount of Rs.3,30,000/-was sanctioned as per Annex.A6 sanction memorandum. Annex.A7 loan application of the 4th party respondent reveals that she had applied for Rs.3,30,000/-and as per Annex.A8 sanction memorandum, the said amount was sanctioned. 13. It is discernible from Annexures A1 to A10 produced by the Bank in WA No.248/2023 that the Bank had sanctioned the amount of loan requested by all the party respondents therein. Annexures A1 to A8 in WA No.151/2023, reveal that the Bank has sanctioned the amount requested by all the party respondents except for party respondent No.1, viz., Sri.Sajith S., who has applied for a loan amount of Rs.3,75,000/-as per Annex.A1 loan application, wherein the Bank, as per Annex.A2 sanction memoranda, has sanctioned only an amount of Rs.3,30,000/-. 14. It is not correct to say that all the other party respondents in both the writ appeals had applied for an amount of Rs.3,75,000 or Rs.4,00,000/-, as the case may be. The loan documents reveal otherwise. The annexures produced by the Bank reveal that they have sanctioned the amounts requested by the party respondents, except in the case of party respondent No.1 in WA No.151 of 2023. The loan documents reveal otherwise. The annexures produced by the Bank reveal that they have sanctioned the amounts requested by the party respondents, except in the case of party respondent No.1 in WA No.151 of 2023. Hence, the finding of the learned Single Judge directing the Bank to disburse the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-to the party respondents is not correct. 15. As far as the loan application of the party respondent No.1 in WA No.151 of 2023 is concerned, the loan request was for an amount of Rs.3,75,000/-, but, the sanctioned amount is only Rs.3,30,000/-. No reason is stated in the sanction memoranda for sanctioning an amount of Rs.3,30,000/-to the party respondent No.1, viz., Sri.Sajith.S. The only reason stated in Annex.A2 sanction memoranda is, “Margin % -0% (Rs.45,000) This has to be met out of savings”. The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted that capping of other expenses at 20% of the total tuition fee payable formed a part of the Model Education Scheme. 16. Similar issue was considered by this Court in Gouri K. and Others v. State Bank of India, in W.P.(C) No.1815/2015, wherein it was held that the capping of the tuition fee on a few components goes against the spirit of the education loan scheme. The appeal filed by the Bank against the above judgment, before this Court was dismissed on 09.09.2016. 17. Here, in this case, no reason is stated in the sanction memoranda regarding the capping of other expenses concerned. In respect of all party respondents except for the party respondent No.1 in WA No.151 of 2023, the Bank has sanctioned the loan amount as requested by them. Hence, we are of the view that as regards the loan amount of party respondent No.1, viz., Sri.Sajith S. in W.A.No.151 of 2023, is concerned, the Bank has to disburse the balance amount of Rs.45000/-requested by him by way of education loan. Accordingly, the following orders are issued; a) Writ Appeal No.248/2023 is allowed. b) Writ Appeal No.151/2023 is partly allowed. The Bank is directed to disburse the balance loan amount of Rs.45,000/-to the party respondent No.1 in W.A.No.151 of 2023, viz., Sri.Sajith S., within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. c) The request for disbursement of the balance amount by the other party respondents is rejected.