JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing No. CWP No. 8075 of 2011 titled as Ram Samuj v. Chief Administrator, Housing Board, Chandigarh and others and CWP No. 7492 of 2011 titled as Sonu v. Chief Administrator, Housing Board, Chandigarh and others as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 8075 of 2011 for dictating the order. The petitioner is a poor jhuggi dweller. He has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash order dated 29.11.2010 (P-9) vide which his application for allotment of a dwelling unit was rejected. It is case of the petitioner that he along with his family was residing in House No. 4343, Palsora Colony, UT, Chandigarh. To say so, reference has been made to a document Annexure P-1 i.e. a ration card. The Voter I-card number of the petitioner is CH/01/000/020/0057474 and it was issued on 22.10.1994. It is case of the petitioner that the said Colony was demolished with a promise to the residents that they will be granted alternative place for residence. It is further stated that the petitioner moved an application for getting a residential accommodation. Name of the petitioner and others, who were provisionally found eligible, was published in a news paper Dainik Bhaskar on 4.7.2003 (P-3) and the petitioner's name was shown therein against application No. 3744, resident of Jhuggi No.4343 and his vote number was also mentioned in the said publication. In response to the above advertisement, the petitioner submitted an application in Form-A along with an affidavit dated 9.7.2003 duly attested by an Executive Magistrate. Copies of above documents have been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Complete details of family members of the petitioner, number of the ration card and voter card were mentioned in the said application and the affidavit. When nothing was done, the petitioner made a request to the respondents for giving him the requisite relief. Thereafter, he sent a legal notice and then came to this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 7684 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.4.2010. When nothing was done, the petitioner made a request to the respondents for giving him the requisite relief. Thereafter, he sent a legal notice and then came to this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 7684 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.4.2010. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the file, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.2 to take a decision on the legal notice (Annexure P-5) sent by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by passing a speaking order.” As per directions given in the above order, the Estate officer, UT, Chandigarh had passed an order on 29.11.2010. After noticing in detail the photocopies of the documents produced by the petitioner, rejected his case by stating that in response to the publication issued in the news paper Dainik Bhaskar on 4.7.2003, the petitioner failed to submit application in time, along with the requisite documents. In Para No.4 of the writ petition it is specifically stated by the petitioner that he had submitted application in Form-A (P-2) along with affidavit dated 4.7.2003. In the reply filed, above fact has not been controverted. The petitioner is a poor person. May be when submitting his application in Form-A, he may not have supplied some documents. He was living in a jhuggi, which was demolished with a promise that an alternative residential accommodation will be allotted to him, under the circumstances it was duty of the authorities to intimate him regarding deficiencies, if any, in supplying the documents and consider his claim after getting his response. It was not done. The poor person is nocking at the door of the Courts for the last more than one and a half decade. His claim cannot be declined now by saying that the Scheme has been repealed. If he was eligible, his right will relate back to the date when his jhuggi in Palsora Colony, Chandigarh, was demolished. It is not in dispute that tentatively, he was considered eligible and his name was also published in a news paper Dainik Bhaskar dated 4.7.2003. The Estate Officer while passing the impugned order dated 29.11.2010, has failed to look into this aspect of the matter. It is not in dispute that tentatively, he was considered eligible and his name was also published in a news paper Dainik Bhaskar dated 4.7.2003. The Estate Officer while passing the impugned order dated 29.11.2010, has failed to look into this aspect of the matter. His original application is required to be taken up and whatever documents were not supplied by him at that time, he should have been asked to make up the deficiency, instead of doing that in a very innocuous manner, it was stated that in response to the advertisement published/public notice, the petitioner failed to move application within the stipulated period and his case was rejected. Further it is observed that the photocopies of the documents, which he has submitted before the Officer concerned, direct to establish his claim. Detail reasons are not given to strengthen above said opinion. Estate Officer is a quasi judicial authority and is supposed to note down the arguments, look into the documents filed by the parties and to give reasoning to rebut/accept the arguments and documents available on record. Nothing was done in this case. In view of above, both these writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Respondent No. 2 is directed to pass order afresh within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by making reference to the application in Form-A and affidavit, filed by the petitioner in response to the public notice. The petitioner be also permitted to produce the evidence of his neighbors who were residing in the said Colony to prove his claim. The Officer concerned then pass a speaking order either way. If the petitioner is found eligible, relief be given to him forthwith. It is brought to our notice that many tenements are lying vacant and are available for allotment. If that is so, case of the petitioner be considered sympathetically.