ORDER : The petitioners are before this Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 02.02.2018 vide Annexure C5 and direct the respondent No. 1 and 2 to dispose off or to execute sale deed of the Quarters bearing No. 20/3, M. M. Road, Cox Town, Bangalore and Quarters bearing No. 20/2, M. M. Road, Cox Town, Bangalore in favour of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 3 through Video Conference. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners 1 and 2 claim that they are employees of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘BBMP’ ). The petitioner no. 1 joined the services of respondent No. 1 as 2nd Grade Accountant and the petitioner no. 2 joined the service of the respondent No. 1 as driver. They made an application dated 27.12.1988 to the respondent No. 1 seeking allotment of quarters. In pursuance to their applications, the petitioner no. 1 was allotted Quarters bearing No. 20/3, M. M. Road, Cox Town, Bangalore vide O. M. dated 16.01.1989 of respondent No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 was allotted Quarters bearing No. 20/2, M. M. Road, Cox Town, Bangalore vide O. M. dated 18.05.1999 of respondent No. 1, respectively. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are in possession and enjoyment of the Quarters . The respondent No.1 in their meeting dated 20.07.1974 has resolved to sell the respective quarters occupied by the respective employees of BBMP fixing the rate of building and site value to the employees who are in occupation. It is also stated that many of the representations of employees were considered and they were allotted and sale deed was executed in respect of the quarters in which they were residing. As such the petitioners made representations to the respondent–Corporation as per AnnexuresC1 to C5 praying the respondent Corporation to execute the sale deed in their favour. But the respondents so far have not considered their request. 5. The respondent Nos. As such the petitioners made representations to the respondent–Corporation as per AnnexuresC1 to C5 praying the respondent Corporation to execute the sale deed in their favour. But the respondents so far have not considered their request. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2–BBMP has filed statement of objections contending that the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for the prayer sought for by him since his wife and son have purchased a flat and a person who possessed own house either in his name or in the name of dependants, would not be entitled for sale of the Quarters. It is also submitted that the quarters in possession of petitioner No. 1 has been subsequently allotted to one Mahesh Kumar. In their statement, they have also stated that the petitioner No. 1 has violated Rule 9D and 9E of BBMP Allotment of Quarters’ guidelines. Further it is also submitted that none of the representations at Annexures C1 to C5 are received by the respondent Corporation and they are all created documents. Nothing has been stated about second petitioner. Thus, they pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are employees of the Respondent No. 1 – BBMP. It is also not in dispute that they were allotted Quarters as per Allotment letter at Annexures-A and B. AnnexureR2 is the guideline dated 26.06.2007 for allotment of quarters for employees of respondent No.1BBMP which would indicate that as on the date of allotment, if such person possesses a own house in his name or in the name of his dependants, such employees would not be entitled for allotment of quarters. 7. Further the guideline for allotment of BBMP Quarters would also indicate that during the occupation of the Quarters, if such an employee acquires own house in his name or his dependants’ name, such person would not be entitled to continue in Quarters. However from Annexures-A and B, it could be seen that the petitioners were allotted Quarters in the year 1989 and 1999 respectively after satisfying their eligibility. They have made representations as per Annexure C1 to C5. However, the respondent No.1Corporation disputed the same. But when the writ petition is served on the respondents, representations were annexed to the writ petition. 8. They have made representations as per Annexure C1 to C5. However, the respondent No.1Corporation disputed the same. But when the writ petition is served on the respondents, representations were annexed to the writ petition. 8. Even though the respondent No.1 has contended that it has not received the representations at Annexures – C1 to C5, as the same are enclosed to writ petition, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation also submits that, however, the respondent No.1 Corporation would consider the representations and pass suitable orders within a reasonable time. 9. Considering the submission of both the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pass suitable orders in accordance with law on the representation at Annexure C5 dated 02.02.2018, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioners to appear before the second respondent on 11.09.2020 at 03.00 p.m. for personal hearing, as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. All the contentions of the parties are left open. Till passing of suitable orders on the representation of petitioners, no precipitate action shall be taken by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.