JUDGMENT : Rajiv Shakdher, J.:-- 1. Issue notice. 2. Ms. Mahua Kalra accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1, while Mr. Parvinder Chauhan accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. In view of the directions that I propose to pass, counsels for the respondents say that they do not wish to file a counter affidavit in the matter. 3. The central issue raised in the writ petition, is that, the petitioner is a non-governmental organization, and in terms of the policy framed by respondent No. 1, i.e., the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, it could be given the right to manage B.R. Ambedkar Bhawan, which is constructed on the land owned by respondent No. 2. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 says that since the land belongs to the said respondent, it would have to examine the request of the petitioner in consonance with the laid down policy. It is also stated that the credentials of the petitioner will also have to be examined. 5. In these circumstances the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to examine the request of the petitioner in terms of the extant policy. While doing so, respondent No. 2 may also examine the credentials of the petitioner and its ability to manage the aforementioned Bhawan. The needful will be done within eight weeks from today. Respondent No. 2, for this purpose, shall be free to call upon the petitioner for providing any material that it may require for the said purpose. 6. Needless to say, respondent No. 2 shall pass a reasoned order. Accordingly, this writ petition will be treated as a representation on behalf of the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.