P. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri S. F. A. . Naqvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Jaiswal, learned standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. Even though counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2 and Sri Rajiv Gupt is the Counsel for respondent No. 2 but at the time of hearing none appears fo respondent No. 2. ( 2 ) SINCE counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged the petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 is the Committee of Management of Sri Chheda Lal Smarak Inter College, jani, district Meerut. On 12-5-96 a notice as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition was published inviting applications from the general public for ordinary membership, life membership and Sanrakshak membership of general body of the Institution. The petitioner made an application dated 24-6-96 as contained in Annexure-4 along with bank draft in the name of manager C. L. M. Inter College, Jani, Meerut amounting to Rs. 1,000/- intending to be made life member of the general body of the College. The application of the petitioner was rejected by resolution of the general body in the meeting held on 1-7-96 on ground that the draft was to be sent in the name of Sri Chheda Lai Smarak Vidyalay, Jani whereas the petitioner had sent the draft in the name of Manager C. L. M. Inter College, Jani, Meerut. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the District Inspector of Schools which has been dismissed vide order dated 13-8-96. The petitioner by the present writ petition was prayed that the orders dated 9-7-76 as contained in Annexure-5 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 13-8-96 be quashed because in the advertisement as contained in Annexure-2 there was no mention as to in whose names the bank draft or cheque was to be submitted and in the advertisement itself the name of the Institution was stated to be C. L. M. Inter College, Jani, district Meerut. Therefore, the application of the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the general body of the Institution and appeal has been wrongly dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Only respondent No. 2 has contested the petition. Therefore, the application of the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the general body of the Institution and appeal has been wrongly dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Only respondent No. 2 has contested the petition. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 it is stated by respondent No. 2 that the never distributed the hand bills stated in para 3 of the writ petition to the Committee of Management, however, published a hand bill notice on 12 - 5-96 inviting applications for registration of new members. According to Clause 2 (3) of the Scheme of the administration, Sanstha means Sri Chheda at Smarak Inter College, Jani, Meerut and it is wrong to say that C. L. M. I. C. is the name of the aforesaid college. Respondent No. 2 while inviting applications had directed that draft regarding membership fee should be payable in the name of sri Chheda Lai Smarak Inter College, Jani, Meerut. The petitioner sent draft in the name of c. L. M. I. C, Jani and such draft could not be accepted by the Committee of Management as well as the Bank because there was no account of respondent No. 2 in the name of C. L. M. I. C. When the respondent No. 2 learnt about the defective draft he immediately contacted the bank and enquired about the validity of the draft but the Branch Manager of the aforesaid bank refused to accept them as there was no account in the name of C. L. M. I. C. Therefore, there is no genuine ground for the petitioner to file this writ petition. ( 4 ) IN the rejoinder-affidavit filed by the petitioner it is stated that the notice was also published in the Daily Newspaper "dainik Jagaran" dated 7-5-96 copy of which is Annexure SA-1. ( 5 ) NO counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. ( 6 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 hqas invited attention of this Court towards sub-clauses (3) and (8) of clause (2) of the Scheme of Administration of respondent No. 2 wherein Sanstha is defined as Chheda Lal Smarak Inter College, Jani, Meerut and sabha is described as Chheda Lal Smarak Vidyalya Jani, Meerut. ( 6 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 hqas invited attention of this Court towards sub-clauses (3) and (8) of clause (2) of the Scheme of Administration of respondent No. 2 wherein Sanstha is defined as Chheda Lal Smarak Inter College, Jani, Meerut and sabha is described as Chheda Lal Smarak Vidyalya Jani, Meerut. It is submitted that since the name of the Institution is Sri Chheda Lai Smarak Inter College, Jani, Meerut and name of the general body was also Sri Chheda Lal Smarak Vidyalya, Jani, Meerut, a draft should have been sent in the said name and not in the name of C. L. M. Inter College. It is also submitted that there was no account in the name of C. L. M Inter College. Therefore, the draft sent by the petitioner could not have been honoured by the Bank. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitoner has drawn attention of this Court towards Clause (7) of the Scheme which simply says that the members fee shall have to be sent in the name of the College through bank draft or cheque. It is not specifically stated in Clause (7) of the Scheme that the draft shall be sent in the name of Sri chheda Lal Smarak Inter College, Jani, Meerut. It is also submitted that in notice published in dainik Jagaran as contained in Annexure SA-1 it was not clarified as to in whose names the draft was to be sent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the hand bills/notice as contained in Annexure-2 which was disputed by respondent No. 2 the name of the College was stated to be C. L. M. Inter College Jani, Meerut and it is also stated in the hand bills/notice that if anybody wanted to become member of the general body of the C. L. M. Inter College, Jani, meerut, he was required to send application alongwith the draft/cheque of the requried amount in accordance with the membership applied for. It is submitted that in view of these facts and circumstancs the petitioner has rightly and properly sent application and has sent proper draft. It is submitted that in view of these facts and circumstancs the petitioner has rightly and properly sent application and has sent proper draft. ( 7 ) IT is no doubt true that sub-clause (3) and sub-clause (8) of Clause (2) of the Scheme of the administration as contained in Annexure-1 describes that Sanstha means Sri Chheda Lai Smarak inter Collegee, Jani, Meerut and Sabha means general body of Sri Chheda Lal Smarak Vidyalya. Clause (7) of the Scheme further provides as to how an application for membership of the general body has to be sent. There is nothing in Clause (7) indicating as to in whose names the draft or cheque is to be sent. In the advertisement as contained in Annexure SA-1 also there was no mention as to in whose names the bank draft was required to be sent. Although the respondent no. 2 has denied to have distriubted hand bill as contained in Annexure-2 but the petitioner has asserted that hand bills/notice were published through Annexure-2 also. In the body of this notice/hand bill the name of the College is stated to be C. L. M. Inter College, Jani, Meerut and at the end Virendra Kumar Mishra, Prabhandhak, C. L. M. Inter College, Jani, Meerut is stated. There is nothing in this notice to indicate that the draft was to be sent in the name of Chheda Lai smarak Inter College, Jani, Meerut. Therefore, the petitioners application could not have been rejected on this ground. It was the notice of the respondent No. 2 itself which had created confusion and in case it was detected by the genera! body that such a confusion was created because of ambiguity in the notice, an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner for correcting the mistake by sending the draft in the correct name or in the name in which the institution had its accounts in the Bank. This having been not done by the respondent No. 2, the orders rejecting the application of the petitioner and order of the Appellate Authority as contained in Annexure-7 pan not be sustained. ( 8 ) THE petition is, therefore, allowed. This having been not done by the respondent No. 2, the orders rejecting the application of the petitioner and order of the Appellate Authority as contained in Annexure-7 pan not be sustained. ( 8 ) THE petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned resolution dated 1-7-96 approved by the general body in its meeting dated 7-7-96 conveyed to the petitioner by letter dated 9-7-96 as contained in Annexure-5 and order dated 13-8-96 passed by the Appellae authority are quashed, it is directed that in case the petitioner sends a fresh application within 3 weeks form today appending therewith a fresh bank draft in the name of Sri Chheda Lal Smarak Inter College, Jani, meerut then the general body shall consider such application within 3 days from the date of its moving and shall decide about the petitioner being inducted as member of the general body. ( 9 ) NO order as to costs. .