JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.9.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 directing the petitioners to apply afresh for the allotment of plot against the oustees quota in view of the policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-3) as and when Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) flouts the plots. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing respondent No.3 to allot the plots to the petitioners as per oustees policy dated 18.3.1992 (Annexure P-1). 2. The petitioners were owners in possession of the land measuring 55 bigha 12 biwas to the extent of their respective shares, situated within the revenue estate of village Patti Taraf Insar, Tehsil and District Panipat, as per the jamabandi for the year 1998-99. Government of Haryana acquired the said land for carving out residential sectors 7 and 8, Urban Estate, Panipat vide award dated 21.2.1992. An advertisement was issued for the allotment of residential/commercial plots/sites in the said sectors. The HUDA framed a policy dated 18.3.1992 (Annexure P-1) for the allotment of plots to the oustees in various Urban Estates set up by the HUDA. In pursuance thereto, the petitioners applied for the allotment of residential plots along with earnest money. However, the claim of the petitioners under the oustees quota was not considered and respondent No.2 vide letter dated 18.9.2006 informed the petitioners that they were unsuccessful in the draw of lots and returned the amount of earnest money vide different cheques. The petitioners filed complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat directed the HUDA to allot the plots to the petitioners at normal rates out of the oustees quota. The said order was upheld by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula. However, in a revision filed by the HUDA before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the petitioners were not the consumers against which the SLP filed by the petitioners was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Supreme Court vide order dated 30.7.2015. The said order was upheld by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula. However, in a revision filed by the HUDA before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the petitioners were not the consumers against which the SLP filed by the petitioners was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Supreme Court vide order dated 30.7.2015. Thereafter, the petitioners filed CWP-4236-2016 and this Court vide order dated 3.3.2016 (Annexure P-2) disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioners under the oustees quota. Further, the HUDA had framed a policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-3) for the settlement of oustees claims. However, respondent No.2 vide order dated 22.9.2016 (Annexure P-4) directed the petitioners to file the applications along with earnest money as and when the plots against the oustees quota would be floated. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that liberty be granted to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition and direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the representation expeditiously in a time bound manner in accordance with law. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition before respondent No.1. It is directed that in the event of a representation being filed by the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the same shall be decided by respondent No.1 in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioners shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate their claim before the concerned authority.