Judgment 1. This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order of 4 July, 2000 passed by a learned Judge on CWJC No. 735 of 2002 : Sanju Sinha V/s. The Vice-Chairman, PRD, and Others. 2. The petitioner was applying for an accommodation. One of the requisites for making the application was that the application should be accompanied by a Bank Draft. Rightly or wrongly the petitioners application was accompanied by a Bankers Cheque. 3. As the stipulation for making an allotment was by a Bank Draft, the petitioners application was rejected because it was accompanied by a Bankers Cheque not a Bank Draft. 4. While the petitioners application was rejected because it was technically defective the next person was taken in on a first come first serve basis. The petitioner found himself aggrieved that he was left out for an allotment. He filed a writ petition. On the writ application the learned Judge has given a reasoned order relying on certain Sections of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that there is a difference between a Bankers Cheque and aBank Draft. Noticing the provision of the law the learned Judge has observed that insofar as a Cheque is concerned the person in whose name it has been cut out will be a holder for value in due course. On the other hand, insofar as a Demand Draft is concerned it is payable on demand. In the circumstances, the fact that the petitioners writ petition was rejected there was no illegality in the order which rejected it. 5. The Court cannot certify that the order of the learned Judge is in error or suffers from an illegality. 6. Dismissed.