Viney Mittal,J. - (1.) (Oral).
(2.) NOTICE of motion to the respondents. On the asking of Court, Shri Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. The primary grievance made by the petitioner is that his claim with regard to allotment of a plot under the Oustee s quota has been rejected vide order dated May 29, 2006 (Annexure P.8). However, no reasons, whatsoever, have been given in the aforesaid order. From the perusal of the aforesaid order (Annexure P.8), we find that the grievance of the petitioner appears to be justified. In the order (Annexure P.8), whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and the amount of earnest money has been refunded, no reasons, whatsoever, have been recorded. Consequently, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and pass a detailed and speaking order within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. In case the petitioner s claim is found to be justified, the petitioner would be at liberty to re-deposit the amount which has been ordered to be refunded vide order Annexure P.8. A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.;