JUDGMENT: 1. In the earlier round of litigation, the Petitioner-Union (Employees of Srinagar Development Authority), in the year 2015, approached this Court through the medium Writ Petition bearing OWP No.7740/2015, seeking a direction in the name of the Respondents to allot the left-out plots in favour of the employees of the Authority who had not been allotted such plots in tune with the policy framed by the Government on the subject and on the same analogy as has been adopted in the case of similarly situated employees of the working with the Respondents. The said Writ Petition, in terms of Order dated 29th of April, 2015, came to be disposed of with the direction to the Respondents to accord consideration to the claim of the Petitioner-Union as set out in the Petition in light of averments made therein, annexures appended thereto; and, of course, in accordance with the rules governing the field. It is submitted that the Order aforesaid passed by this Court was served upon the Respondents, however, despite lapse of considerable period of time, the same remained unimplemented, constraining the Petitioner-Union to file Contempt Petition No.345/2016. During the pendency of this Contempt Petition, the Respondents issued Order bearing No. SDA/VC/80 dated 5th of July, 2017, whereby the claim of the Petitioner-Union stands rejected. It is this rejection Order dated 5th of July, 2017 that has been assailed by the Petitioner-Union herein in this present Petition. 2. In terms of Order dated 6th of November, 2017, this Court, while issuing notice to the Respondents, as an ad-interim measure, restrained the Respondents from auctioning, allotting/ using or utilizing the 159 plots of land at Bemina Housing Colony earmarked for the employees of the Petitioner-Union. 3. Mr M. I. Dar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner-Union, submitted that the impugned consideration Order issued by the Respondents is result of non-application of mind inasmuch as the Respondents, while issuing the same, did not accord consideration to the claim of the Petitioner-Union in its true and correct perspective and as was directed by the Court in terms of Order dated 29th of April, 2015 passed in the earlier Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner-Union. It is further submitted that the plots of land stand earmarked and approved by the Divisional Town Planner of the Respondents and that the left-over members of the Petitioner-Union are seeking the allotment of the said plots on the same analogy as has been adopted in the case of their counterparts working with the Respondents. Mr Dar pleads that denial of the plots in favour of the left-out members of the Petitioner-Union on part of the Respondents has subjected the said members to hostile discrimination. 4. Objections stand filed on behalf of the Respondents. It is submitted that the Order dated 29th of April, 2015 passed by this Court in OWP No.740/2015 filed by the Petitioner-Union earlier in point of time was examined at different levels and, finally, the proposal regarding the same, as per procedure, was placed before the SDA Board in its 75th meeting. It is further submitted that the Board, after going through all aspects of the matter, did not agree to the proposal of allotment of residential plots in favour of SDA employees and found the same devoid of merit, resulting in issuance of impugned consideration Order dated 5th of July, 2017. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 6. From a bare look of the impugned consideration Order, what can be seen from a naked eye is that there has been absolutely no application of mind by the maker/ makers, author/ authors, on whose dictates the same came to be passed. The Respondents were under a legal obligation to consider the claim of the Petitioner-Union and decide it by passing a speaking order as directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and not in the mode and manner which has been adopted herein this case. The Respondents have rejected the claim of the Petitioner-Union without assigning any reason therefore, muchless a cogent one. 7. Apart from the above perspective, it is the case of the Petitioner-Union that the Respondents have subjected the members of the Petitioner-Union to hostile discrimination in the matter of allotment of plots as the plots have been allotted in the cases of some similarly situated employees working with the Respondents. 7. Apart from the above perspective, it is the case of the Petitioner-Union that the Respondents have subjected the members of the Petitioner-Union to hostile discrimination in the matter of allotment of plots as the plots have been allotted in the cases of some similarly situated employees working with the Respondents. This aspect of the matter, though specifically raised in the earlier Petition filed by the Petitioner-Union, too, did not find any mention in the impugned consideration Order issued by the Respondents. What has been merely stated by the Respondents in the impugned consideration Order is that the Board did not agree to the proposal of allotment of residential plots in favour of SDA employees as the proposal was found devoid of merit, however, no reason/ ground to support this view/ conclusion has been supplied by the Respondents which renders the consideration Order unsustainable in the eyes of law. 8. In view of the preceding analysis, the Petition of the Petitioner-Union is allowed and the impugned consideration Order bearing No. SDA/VC/80 dated 5th of July, 2017 dated 5th of July, 2017 is quashed. The Respondents are directed to accord fresh consideration to the claim of the Petitioner-Union for allotment of plots in terms of the rules governing the field as also having regard to the discussion made hereinabove. 9. Writ Petition disposed of as above, along with all connected CM(s).