JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Lack of foresight and uncalled for hurry in the office of Director of Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow in cancelling petitioner's admission after having being declared successful in combined pre-entrance competitive examination conducted by Moti Lal Nehru Engineering College Allahabad for 1984-85 led to filing of this petition for direction to the Director to admit petitioner in B.E. Part I. It is not disputed that after communication of result, petitioner appeared on 14th July 84 at Moti Lal Nehru College deposited Rs. 600/- advance fee and Rs. 20/- interview-cum- medical examination fee. After completion of formalities etc. he was handed over copy of letter sent by Admission Committee of the college dated 15th July 84 addressed to the Director of the Institute informing him that petitioner was admitted in Electrical branch of the institute. He had deposited Rs. 600/- and was asked to report at institute on due date and deposit balance of admission fee and complete other formalities. In bottom of the letter reporting date was mentioned sometime in Oct. 84. It is claimed by petitioner that after receiving this intimation he, being a resident of a village in district Faizabad, left under the impression that now he shall be required to report at the institute in Oct. 1984. But he by chance came to Allahabad on 24th Aug. 1984 and met his landlord at Allahpur, Allahabad where he was residing prior to his selection and was staying with a colleague in one of the rooms, who told that some registered letter in his name had come which had been received by his colleague. On contacting him the petitioner was informed that a registered letter had no doubt come from the institute but the same had been misplaced by him. The petitioner then rushed to Lucknow contacted the Director on 25th Aug. who informed him that he was required to report on 18th Aug., 1984 for being admitted to the hostel accommodation of the institute. But as petitioner did not turn up nor did he comply with the intimation sent by institute, his admission had been cancelled and the seat had been filled up by giving admission to the next candidate of the waiting list. But as petitioner did not turn up nor did he comply with the intimation sent by institute, his admission had been cancelled and the seat had been filled up by giving admission to the next candidate of the waiting list. In two counter-affidavits filed, one by the coordinator of Admission Committee, combined Entrance Examination Committee, Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College, and Administrative Officer, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow, it has been stated that when petitioner had come to appear for interview in July, 1984, he was informed orally by the Director of Institute that students allotted to his institute shall be intimated before Oct., 1984 about the date when they were to present themselves and deposit the balance fee etc. and such intimation was sent in Aug. 1984 on the address given by petitioner in his application. According to them as petitioner did not turn up in pursuance of the intimation sent to him, his admission was cancelled as in the letter sent to him it was clearly mentioned that in case he did not deposit the balance fee and the form sent by the institute by the date mentioned in the letter namely, 18th Aug., 1984 then it shall be presumed that he was not interested in joining the institute and his seat shall be filled up by other student on the waiting list. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for parties it is apparent that petitioner has lost his seat not because of any fault on his part but because of a situation on which he had no control. It is not denied nor it could be denied that petitioner is a resident of a village of Faizabad. He was residing at Allahpur in Allahabad for purposes of studying. He having been intimated by the authorities that reporting date in the institute shall be in Oct., 1984 he could reasonably presume that he could go to his village and he shall receive intimation sometime in Oct. or Sept. Although it is claimed on behalf of opposite-parties that he was orally informed that intimation could be sent even earlier and even if it be accepted as correct the responsibility could not be fastened on petitioner. The letter was not sent along with acknowledgment slip. Learned counsel for opposite parties stated that the letters by Institute or college are not accompanied by acknowledgment slip. The letter was not sent along with acknowledgment slip. Learned counsel for opposite parties stated that the letters by Institute or college are not accompanied by acknowledgment slip. May be so but in such a case where delivery or non-delivery of a letter or intimation results in cancellation of admission etc. it is better if authorities are in a position to know if the letter had been delivered and they do not act on assumption and inference only. In any case, even if acknowledgment was not sent, it is not established that letter was received by petitioner or any adult member of his family or any person who could be said to be looking after the interest of petitioner. c leads to the inference or presumption under Postal Act that the letter was delivered butlit could not give rise to inference that the contents of this letter become known to petitioner, unless the person who was entitled to receive on his behalf had received the same. In these circumstances the petitioner did not know that he was to appear at the institute on the specified date and deposit the fee and form as required. If the letter sent by Institute was not delivered or no presumption could be raised about its contents then the assumption drawn by the Institute that petitioner was not interested in getting the admission cannot be sustained. 3. Further, we find from the prospectus of the Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow produced by learned counsel for Institute that rules for payment provided that candidates selected for admission are required to deposit Admission, tuition and other fees as detailed in the prospectus by the specified date. It is urged on behalf of petitioner that deposit consists of two parts, one of admission, tuition and Library fee etc. and the other hostel fee. According to him as word hostel is not mentioned in the rules of payment and the deposit for admission, tuition and other fee, total Rs. 422/- and petitioner had deposited Rs. 600/- the Institute was in error in treating the deposit to be deficient. It is not necessary for this Court to decide this controversy in this petition as it having been held that intimation sent by institute was not served on petitioner his admission could not be cancelled. 4. 422/- and petitioner had deposited Rs. 600/- the Institute was in error in treating the deposit to be deficient. It is not necessary for this Court to decide this controversy in this petition as it having been held that intimation sent by institute was not served on petitioner his admission could not be cancelled. 4. From prospectus we further find that clause 3.8 provides as under : "Commencement of the course and the last date of Joining : - Intimation regarding this will be sent to the selected candidates for 1984-85 session last date of joining is 19th Nov., 1984 by 3.00 p.m." This indicates that the candidate selected or allotted to this institute could join till 19th Nov., 1984. Normally, when a candidate does not turn up or fails to deposit the fee, his admission should have been cancelled after 19th Nov., 1984 which was given in the prospectus as the last date of joining and then only any candidate from the waiting list could have been granted admission. The authorities, however, appeared to have worked in hot- haste and not only cancelled the admission of petitioner but also granted admission of another candidate of the waiting list. In doing so they committed manifest error of law as it was not only based on wrong inference or assumption drawn by the authorities by the non-appearance of petitioner in August, 1984 but was contrary to the prospectus itself. 5. Learned counsel for the institute submitted that the total seats allotted in the institute are 60 only, and at present there are 61 candidates including the two candidates who had been admitted provisionally under the interim orders granted by this Court (Lucknow Bench). He further states that one of the candidates, he has been informed, has left and, therefore, the number is reduced to 60 only. According to him as the seat is already full it is not possible for them to accommodate the petitioner. As pointed out earlier it is not a case of accommodating but of the mistake. And it is well settled that nobody is made to suffer for where other side is to blame. As the petitioner has suffered not because of himself it would be unjust and unfair to refuse admission to him. 6. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. And it is well settled that nobody is made to suffer for where other side is to blame. As the petitioner has suffered not because of himself it would be unjust and unfair to refuse admission to him. 6. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. A direction is issued to Director of Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow to admit petitioner in B.E. Course of 1984-85, if he deposits the fee and complies with other rules of the Institute. From the Counter-Affidavit it appears Sri Nasir Ahmad Ansari has been admitted in place of petitioner. As he is not a party in this petition,,no order can be passed which -could adversely effect him. It is, therefore, made clear that 1 is admission shall not stand cancelled by order. passed by this Court. If necessary the Institute may take steps with the State Government to get one admission (additional) seat in B.E. for this year so that none of the candidates may be put to any harm or injury. But this would not delay admission of petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to its costs.