( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioners seeks the following reliefs:- A. Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Authority to accept the application of the petitioner and allot 4000 Sq. meters of industrial land in the Phase II/phase-III of Noida. B. Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondent Authority from allotting any industrial plots and/or handing over possession of the industrial Plots under the Noida/indigenous Peoples/2006-07/oes (01) Scheme. C. Writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus quashing any action taken by the respondent authority for allotment of plots under the aforesaid scheme. D. Such other further order/orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. E. To grant the cost of the petition to the petitioners. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case set out in the writ petition are that the petitioner no. 2 is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner no. 1 is a Managing Director of the said Company. The Company is a leading manufacturer of perfumery compounds since last fifteen years. The Company has a modern factory at Y-4, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi. Its turnover in the last several years are in crores and to set up a new Industry, the petitioners applied for allotment of industrial plot measuring 4000 Sq. meters, under the Scheme Noida/indigenous Peoples/2006-07/oes (01 ). The processing fee of Rs. 10,000/- and the registration fee at Rs. 20 Lacs were deposited vide Cheque no. 104730 dated 26. 9. 2006 and Cheque no. 104729 dated 29. 9. 2006. The proposed project for which, the petitioners applied for the allotment of industrial plot was claimed to be of Rs. 20 Crores. After moving the application vide letter dated 8. 12. 2006, the respondent no. 1 has required the petitioner to appear in an interview at 1. 30 P. M. On 18. 12. 2006 at Indira Gandhi Kala Kendra, Sector-6, Noida. The petitioners appeared before the Screening Committee, which has been formed by the respondent no. 1 for this purpose. The petitioners claimed that no further information was received. Thereafter, on 25. 1. 2007, the petitioners received refund of his registration fee vide Cheque no. 970431 for Rs. 20 Lacs dated 23. 1. 2007. The petitioners appeared before the Screening Committee, which has been formed by the respondent no. 1 for this purpose. The petitioners claimed that no further information was received. Thereafter, on 25. 1. 2007, the petitioners received refund of his registration fee vide Cheque no. 970431 for Rs. 20 Lacs dated 23. 1. 2007. Thereafter, the petitioners sent representation/letter dated 29. 1. 2007 with the request to provide reasons for rejecting the project proposal for the allotment of industrial plot and prayed for reconsideration of their application. When the petitioners could not receive any response from the respondent no. 1, the present writ petition has been filed. ( 3 ) WE have heard Mrs. Pinky Anand assisted by Sri R. K. Asthana, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Thus, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners made elaborate submissions on several legal issues including legitimate expectation, scope of judicial review in such a case. She submitted that at the time of interview, nothing adverse has been communicated to the petitioners and after the interview, no reasons for the rejection of the application has also been communicated. She submitted that the complete details of the financial condition of the Company have been stated in the application and the copy of the balance-sheet and project report were submitted alongwith the application before the respondent no. 1. ( 5 ) SRI Anurag Khanna learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the reasons for the rejection of the application by the Screening Committee is enclosed as CA-1. He submitted that since the petitioners could not furnish the documents relating to the details mentioned in the application, thus, availability of the financial resources, requirement of the area of the land and execution of the project were not clear and for this reason, the application was not found eligible for acceptance. He submitted that since the petitioners could not furnish the documents relating to the details mentioned in the application, thus, availability of the financial resources, requirement of the area of the land and execution of the project were not clear and for this reason, the application was not found eligible for acceptance. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have furnished the complete details about financial resources and filed the copy of the balance-sheet and the project report alongwith the application, but in any case, if the Screening Committee would have required any further documents, the same should have been asked for. It is submitted that it is not the case of the respondent that any further documents were required from the petitioners and the same could not be furnished. It is, submitted that the petitioners turnover are in Crores and the Company is running in profit and has a substantial financial resources to establish a Unit at Noida for which, the plot was required. Thus, there is no reason to reject the application. ( 7 ) BE that as it may, application dated 29. 1. 2007 for reconsideration is still pending before the Competent Authority and Sri Anurag Khanna assures us that the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance to law and in case, the authority feels that some other documents are required to be filed or some further evidence is required to be adduced in support of their application, some reasonable time to do so shall be granted. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances and the submissions made by Sri Anurag Khanna that the application for reconsideration shall be reconsidered by the respondent no. 1, we request the respondent no. 1 to consider the application of the petitioners afresh after giving them opportunity of hearing expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of the order before the respondent no. 1. If any document is required to be filed by the petitioners, the same may be asked for. 1 to consider the application of the petitioners afresh after giving them opportunity of hearing expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of the order before the respondent no. 1. If any document is required to be filed by the petitioners, the same may be asked for. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the claim of the petitioners for the allotment of the industrial plots on merit, ( 9 ) AS we are disposing of the writ petition on a very limited issue, we do not consider it necessary to deal with other issues raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. .