( 1 ) THIS is a suit filed by plaintiffs, who entered into apartnership agreement, on 4. 2. 94. The partnership was to start the business in the name and style of M/s. Komal Circus. Thereafter an application was filed by the said M/s. Komal Circus with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) inter alia seeking permission to participate in allotment of land which is being done by defendant No. l-MCD for staging circus show. Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the piaintiffs, has argued that the firm of plaintiffs was issued a certificate by General Secretary of defendant No. 2 informing him that the plaintiff was made a member vide letter dated 17. 4. 94. This letter Was written by Mr. Vinod Sabharwal. In the said letter, it has been mentioned that M/s. Komal Circus is one of the members of India Circus Federation (Registered ). Mr. Sethi has argued that M/s. Komal Circus, the partnership concern of the plaintiffs, was given a certificate that it is a member of defendant No. 2. Mr. Sethi has further argued that subsequently a letter was received on 20. 5. 94 written by the Tresurer of defendant No. 2 that in the Executive Committee meeting, the Federation expressed its inability to enlist M/s. Komal Circus as member on the ground that M/s. Komal Circus has yet to take birth and they also mentioned in the said letter that as and when M/s. Komal Circus starts, its application will be considered. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that once a certificate of membership was issued in the name of M/s. Komal Circus, the defendants, in. an unilaterally manner and without adhering to the principles of natural justice, could not have revoked the membership of the plaintiff. Mr. Sethi has also filed newspaper cuttings aswell as a copy of the invitation card inter alia showing that M/s. Komal Circus has come into existence and as a matter of fact has been performing at Samand Ludhiana in Punjab. Mr. Sethi has argued that the action of the MCD not to allow the plaintiffs to participate in the draw of lots with the other members of defendant No. 2 is illegal, he has prayed that plaintiffs should be allowed to participate in the tender for which his application is pending with defendant No. l-MCD. On the other hand, Mr. Bhucher, learned counsel for defendant No. l-MCD, has pointed out that in terms of allotment rules of municipal ground for circus, MCD has framed certain norms pursuant to which it is the policy of the MCD that ground for circus will be flowed to bona fide circus units affiliated to the Indian Circus Federation. He has pointed out that list of such units is formulated by the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Govt. of India. Mr. Sethi contends that no such list is formulated by the said Ministry. Mr. Bhucher says that as a representation was received from defendant No. 2 that the plaintiffs are not the members of defendant No. 2 and on the basis of the rules framed in this regard, MCD cannot Consider the appliclation of the plaintiffs.

( 2 ) MR. Swatanter Kumar, learned counsel for defendant No. 2, has drawn my attention to rules and regulations of Indian Circus Federation. Particularly he laid emphasis on Rule-3 which reads as under :- "any person who is connected with the Circus firms or concerns in his capacity either as founder or as proprietor or as a partners is eligible to become a member of the Federation. Every such member shall pay an admission fee RS. 1000. 00. "

( 3 ) ACCORDING to submission of learned counsel for defendant No. 2, firstly defendant No. 2 had no notice of the certificate granted by plaintiff No. 2 to himself and plaintiff No. l. He has emphasised that, defendant No. 2 only came to know that M/s. Komal Circus was given membership when it was brought to the notice of defendant No. 2 by defendant No. l. It is interesting to observe here that at relevant period Mr. Vinod Sabharwal was the General Secretary of defendant No. 2. He