JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - It is because of some confusion on the part of the petitioner that he has suffered consequences and ultimately has been forced to approach this Court through the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner, who had applied for admission to All India Engineering/Architect Entrance Examination (AIEEE) 2012 had appeared in the entrance examination on 29.04.2012 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. The petitioner was ranked in overall merit No. 38065 and was placed at No. 789 category wise merit. At State level he was placed at No. 5165 and in category wise State merit at No. 119. 3. On 30.06.2012, the petitioner appeared at NIT, Kurukshetra and was given provisional admission in Civil Engineering branch. The petitioner deposited fee of Rs.25,000/- with respondent No. 1. On 22.07.2012, the petitioner reported to the institution with his luggage and was allotted hostel room, where he deposited sum of Rs.2,000/-. Taking it to be the institution fee, the petitioner stayed in hostel but, however, failed to deposit approximately sum of Rs.4850/- by 5.00 p.m. on 23.07.2012. His admission was cancelled on this ground. 4. On 25.07.2012, the petitioner and his father made a request to the institution and also submitted representation but they did not receive any response. The petitioner, accordingly, has approached this Court saying that he cannot be put to such prejudice just because of some inadvertent mistake or confusion on his part. 5. Reply on behalf of the respondent-institution has been filed. The facts, as pleaded in the petition, are not in dispute. It is conceded that the petitioner had reported to the institution on 22.07.2012. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had deposited the fee of Rs.25,000/- and hostel charges of Rs.2000/-. On account of some confusion and taking it to be institution fee, the petitioner failed to deposit sum of Rs.4850/-, which was required to be deposited by him by 5.00 p.m. on 23.07.2012. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner remained in hostel on 23.07.2007 as the first year students were directed to do so to avoid any incident of ragging. On the next day, his admission was cancelled. 6. While issuing notice of motion, this Court had directed the respondent-institution to permit the petitioner to deposit the institution fee. Mr. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner remained in hostel on 23.07.2007 as the first year students were directed to do so to avoid any incident of ragging. On the next day, his admission was cancelled. 6. While issuing notice of motion, this Court had directed the respondent-institution to permit the petitioner to deposit the institution fee. Mr. Virk very fairly submits that the order has been complied with and the petitioner has been permitted to deposit the fee. The operation of the order, cancelling the admission, has already been stayed by this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner is continuously attending the classes. 7. I am of the considered view that this inadvertent mistake or confusion on part of the petitioner cannot be permitted to lead these unfair consequences. Accordingly, the order cancelling the admission of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. Since the petitioner had already been complied with the directions, his admission shall be treated as regularised. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.