JUDGMENT - QAZI, M.M., J.:---The petition was filed originally by two petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 Smt. Bahinabai widow of late Rao Bahadur Shri D. Laxminarayan, who had donated large property to the Nagpur University, died during the pendency of the petition, and hence her name has been deleted. We are now concerned only with the petitioner No. 2 Shri K. Balmukund (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'). K. Balmukund is the son of daughter of D. Gangadhar Rao, who was the brother of Shri Laxminarayan (Donor). D. Laxminarayan had executed a Will dated 3-5-1930, donating large property to the Nagpur University. The property was worth several Lakhs. 2. The Nagpur University Act, 1963, was replaced by the Nagpur University Act, 1974. Under this Act, the word 'Court' was submitted by the word 'Senate'. As per section 20 of the 1974 Act, the members of the Senate consist of ex officio members as mentioned under Clause (A), elected members as mentioned in Clause (B), and other members as mentioned in Clause (C). We are concerned with the category of 'elected members' mentioned in Clause (B)(xvii), which is reproduced below: "(xvii) Two representatives of individual donors and nominees of organisations, each having donated not less than rupees one Lakh, or property of the value of not less than rupees one lakh, to or for the purpose of the university, from amongst themselves: Provided that, a person elected under sub-clause (i) to (xvi) of Clause (B) shall cease to be a member of the Senate as soon as he ceases to be a member of the electing body or bodies, as the case may be." In this connection, we may also refer to the statutes enacted under the Nagpur University Act, 1974. Statute 13, which is enacted under section 20(1)(B)(xvii) reads thus: "The Representatives of Donors of Senate.---(1) Whenever necessity arises for election under section 20(1)(B)(xvii), the registrar shall prepare a list of individual donors and nominees of organisations, each having donated not less than Rs. one lakh or property of value of not less than Rs. one lakh on the day of donation to or for the purposes of the University. The value of the donated property shall be valued, as on the day of donation, at not less than Rs. one lakh. (Note:---This representation is for donors who have donated or shall donate to the University only). 2. one lakh on the day of donation to or for the purposes of the University. The value of the donated property shall be valued, as on the day of donation, at not less than Rs. one lakh. (Note:---This representation is for donors who have donated or shall donate to the University only). 2. The Registrar shall send a letter of request to the individual donors or Secretary of the organisations named in the list mentioned in para 1 above, to nominate before such date as may be specified in the request, a person who shall be a voter for election to the University Senate. 3. The Registrar shall prepare a list of such voters and publish it on the notice board of his office." 3. According to Mr. Udhoji, the donor has to be represented for ever. In other words, according to him, even if the donor dies someone must represent him to elect the senate. In short, according to him, even though D. Laxminarayan is no more the petitioner has a right to represent him. He has challenged the validity of Statute 13 being discriminatory to section 20 of the Nagpur University Act, 1974 (for short 'Act'). The challenge to this effect is specifically raised in Ground No. (X) of the petition, which is reproduced below: "(X) That the Statute No. 13 is discriminatory against the letter and spirit of the provisions of section 20(1)(B)(xvii) of the Nagpur University Act, which makes no differentiation, as between a 'Donor' and/or 'benefactor' i.e. whether the donation is from an individual or an organisation, or whether dead or alive. The Statute 13, as interpreted by the University is, therefore liable to be quashed." In the alternative, Mr. Udhoji has submitted that at any rate the Nagpur University is estopped from issuing the letter dated 3-2-1982 addressed to Smt. D. Bahinabai widow of D. Laxminarayan, informing her that the Statute 13 enacted under section 20(1)(B)(xvii) of the Act does not give any hereditary rights to a donor to nominate his/her legal representatives on the Senate, and further informing her that the letter dated 17-12-1981 issued earlier in her favour requesting her to nominate a person who shall vote for election of the Senate, be treated as cancelled. In this connection, Mr. In this connection, Mr. Udhoji has relied on the decision reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 621 (M/s. M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of U. P. and others)1. According to Mr. Udhoji, the University is estopped from taking away the rights which it had earlier recognised and acted upon. Lastly Mr. Udhoji contended that the action of the University amounts to mala fide intention. 4. Mr. Udhoji contended that the donor had to be represented for ever, since it is a perpetual right. According to him, the impugned letter dated 3-2-1982 (Annexure VII) issued by the Nagpur University is contrary to the objects of section 20(1)(B)(xvii) of the Act read with Statute 13. In support of his contention, he has invited our attention to the letter dated 17-12-1981 addressed by the Registrar to Lady Bahinabai, requesting her to nominate a person who shall be voter for the election of the Senate. 5. The Nagpur University in its return has stated that there is no provision to recognise the petitioner as legal heir of late D. Laxminarayan for the purposes of the present petition. It has also stated that there is no provision in the Will that the donor wanted someone to represent him, even after his death. It has categorically stated that the petitioner is not a donor and hence he cannot claim the right of inclusion in the Donors' category. It denies that the petitioner K. Balmukund can legally represent Smt. Bahinabai when she herself was not a donor. According to the University, the donor is not entitled to be represented by a nominee unless the said donor is an organisation. The University has clarified that the letter dated 17th December, 1981 (Annexure IV) was issued by mistake and hence it could always rectify mistake particularly when the mistake did not alter the position of the petitioner in any way. The University has fairly conceded that the petitioner represented as a member on the University Senate for the term between 1975 and 1981 contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Statute. It, however, states that the term being over, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same for the next term. 6. From the close reading of section 20(1)(B)(xvii) of the Act (quoted supra), it is clear that two representatives of individual donors are voters for election to the University Senate. It, however, states that the term being over, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same for the next term. 6. From the close reading of section 20(1)(B)(xvii) of the Act (quoted supra), it is clear that two representatives of individual donors are voters for election to the University Senate. The words "two representatives of individual donors" are absolutely clear and are not capable of any other interpretation but the one which we have shown above. It is only the organisations, which are donors, can send their nominees. We are not concerned here with the case of organisation. The present case is purely one of the individual donor. The interpretation which we have placed upon section 20(1)(B)(xvii) is further clarified by Statute 13. The following words used in the Statute 13--- "Whenever necessity arises for election under section 20(1)(B)(xvii), the registrar shall prepare a list of individual donors." also confirm our interpretation of section 20(1)(B)(xvii) that two representatives of individual donors can alone by eligible to exercise their vote in the election of the Senate. The note mentioned under Statute 13(1) is reproduced below: "Note:---This representation is for donors who have donated or shall donate to the University only." The note has made the position further clear that the representation is only for donors and not for their nominees. The material portion of Statute 13(2) is reproduced below: "The Registrar shall send a letter of request to the individual donors......." The provision, quoted above, again lends support to our interpretation that the representation is only for the donors. The question of nominees arises only in case of organisations, with which we are not here concerned. There is no substance in the contention of Mr. Udhoji that the donor has to be represented for ever. It is true that the heirs of the donor are denied the opportunity of representing the donor in the University, but that cannot be helped since the provisions of the Act as well as of the Statute are absolutely clear in that behalf. 7. Mr. Udhoji has challenged the validity of Statute 13 as being discriminatory to section 20(1)(B)(xvii) of the Act. The challenge is raised in ground No. (X) of the petition, which has already been reproduced supra. In our view, there is no substance in this challenge. 7. Mr. Udhoji has challenged the validity of Statute 13 as being discriminatory to section 20(1)(B)(xvii) of the Act. The challenge is raised in ground No. (X) of the petition, which has already been reproduced supra. In our view, there is no substance in this challenge. We have already shown above that section 20(1)(B)(xvii) is not capable of any other interpretation except the one; that the representation is for donors only, and Statute 13 simply lays down the procedure to be adopted by the University for implementation of section 20(1)(B)(xvii). It is, therefore, not possible to accept that Statute 13 is discriminatory to section 20(1)(B)(xvii) of the Act. We may also point out here that the validity of section 20(1)(B)(xvii) has not been challenged. No relief is also claimed that Statute 13 be declared invalid or ultra vires. Having regard to these facts, it is not possible to entertain this challenge that Statute 13 is invalid. Mr. Sanyal has referred to the provisions of section 16(1)(B) of the Nagpur University Act, 1963, and contended that even under the old Act the donor could be represented only during the life-time and the institution could be represented for 20 years. On the basis of the provisions of the old as well as the new Acts, he contended, and in our view, rightly, that there was no provision for an individual donor to be represented through someone else. 8. Mr. Udhoji, in the alternative, contended that the University is estopped from taking away the rights which it had earlier recognised and acted upon. In this connection he has relied on the decision reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 621 (cited supra). This decision is not relevant to the facts of the present case. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the University is merely rectifying the mistake which it had committed by issuing the letter dated 17-12-1981. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the petitioner altered his position in any way by relying upon the letter dated 17-12-1981. In fact, this letter is not addressed to the present petitioner. It was addressed to Lady Bahinabai, who is no more. Having regard to these facts, we do not think there is any substance in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. -----