The main legal point established is that failure to fulfill the conditions specified by the college or society regarding capitation fee remittance can lead to dismissal of the admission appeal.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4193 of 1975 is directed against an order made by a learned single Judge of the Court whereby the said petition was dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing.

( 2 ) THE material facts are few and, briefly, as follows: - the appellant has been successful in the last P. U. C. examination having secured 81. 6 per rent of marks in the subjects relevant for the purpose of seeking admission to a medical college. He applied to, respondent 2 medical college for admission on payment of an initial capitation fee of Rs. 5,020 as advertised by the said institution. The said institution being run by a private body, namely K. L. R. Society at Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as the Society), had to abide by instructions issued by the government. But as it happened instructions were issued by the government giving liberty to the management of the institution to admit a certain number of students only on payment of a capitation fee of Rs. 10,000 by candidates seeking admission. Apparently, in view of the later instruction the management of the society addressed letters by registered post to such of those candidates who had earlier sought for admission on payment of rs. 5,020, to remit by bank draft a further sum of Rs. 5,000 strictly within the time specified therein, to enable the management to consider the applications for admission.

( 3 ) IT would appear that the petitioner in an endeavour to comply with the later demand sent the necessary draft by registered post on 18-7-1975, the last day fixed for receipt of such drafts being 20-7-1975, which was a sunday. For one reason or other the said draft did not reach the management of the Society in the time stipulated. The said bank draft was returned by the management of the Society on 28-7-1975 on the ground that it had been received beyond 20th July 1975 which was the last date fixed for the purpose. The result of it was that the petitioner's application for a seat on capitation fee basis was not considered and consequently he failed to secure admission to respondent-2 college. Hence the petition under Art. 226 of the constitution for appropriate reliefs.

( 4 ) THE learned single Judge without going into the question of maintainability of the petition under Art 226 of the Constitution, against a private body, dismissed the petition on merits by holding that the petitioner had not fulfilled the condition relative to the remittance of Rs. 5 000 to reach the management of the Society on or before 20-7-1975 enjoined in its communication in regard to the same. Hence this appeal.

( 5 ) IN the course of the submission on behalf of the appellant, a postal receipt was brought to our notice showing that the registered cover containing the bank draft had in fact been received by the post office at Davangere, the place of residence of the candidate, on 18-7-1975, and a communication from the post office stating that the cover was tendered to the addressee only on 21-7-1975 and the same, on being redirected, was delivered to the Society only on 23-7-1975. In this state of facts, it was contended that the refusal by respondent-2 college to receive the said cover was not bona fide and at any rate the tender on 21-7-1975 was a proper one in the eye of law, having regard to the fact that the last date, namely 20-7-1975, fell on a Sunday. Support for this contention was sought from an enunciation of the Supreme Court in the case of C. P. Angadi v. Y. S. Hiriannayya, AIR 1972 SC 239. It was, therefore, contended that the non-acceptance of the bank draft by respondent-2 college and the consequent refusal to consider the application for admission were irregular and illegal and necessary writ for the reliefs mentioned ought to issue.

( 6 ) ON behalf of respondent-2, it was contended that no writ could issue to a private body and that in any event its (respondent-2's) action was fully justified as the condition prescribed regarding the