JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is in relation to non-disbursement of scholarship and fee reimbursement amount to the scheduled caste students of four different institutions being run by the petitioner trust. It seems that on account of spelling mistake in the name of the bank to which the amount is to be remitted that the State respondents had failed to credit the amount. 3. On 1 April 2016, the following order was passed: - "On oral prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to implead the Director, Social Welfare, Government of U.P., Lucknow as party respondent to the instant writ petition. Notice on behalf of said respondent has also been accepted by the learned standing counsel. Learned standing counsel submitted that the spelling mistake in the name of the bank to which the amount is to be credited had occurred when the institution supplied the data whereas the case of the petitioner is that the mistake had occurred at the level of the department. Learned standing counsel is directed to produce the data supplied by the institution in this regard to demonstrate that the mistake is attributable to the petitioner. Learned standing counsel shall obtain instructions in this regard and place the material before the Court in support of his contention on the next date. Put up as a fresh case on 11 April 2016." 4. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned standing counsel on the basis of the instructions received by him has apprised the Court of the fact that the mistake was in fact a technical fault of the system at the end of the bank. He has further pointed out that the aforesaid mistake was required to be corrected by the Institution as per liberty granted by letter dated 8 July 2015. It is pointed out that the petitioner had moved an application seeking correction on 1 January 2016 followed by another reminder moved recently. He further pointed out that the District Social Welfare Officer on receipt of the relevant information from the petitioner has forwarded the entire data to the Director, Social Welfare, and he is in the process of considering the request made by the petitioner trust for release of scholarship amount. He further pointed out that the District Social Welfare Officer on receipt of the relevant information from the petitioner has forwarded the entire data to the Director, Social Welfare, and he is in the process of considering the request made by the petitioner trust for release of scholarship amount. He further pointed out that the Director will take decision in the matter within such time, as may be directed by this Court. 5. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served in directing the fifth respondent to take a decision in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order along with fresh representation is filed before him by the petitioner. It is ordered accordingly. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.