Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. House No. 60/1-8 belonging to the Bihar State Housing Board at Jamshedpur was allotted to the petitioner some tune in the year 1986. According to the petitioner, it was under TAYO puel and he was allotted the same as an employee of Tata-Yadagawa Lid. But, it seems that the house was then allotted to the petitioner directly by the Housing Board through Annexure-4 on an application made on behalf of the petitioner. But without giving any opportunity to show cause to the petitioner, the allotment was cancelled by Annexure-9 on 29.1.1994 and the house in question was settled with one Sheela Devi wife of Respondent No.7, It is stated that such allotment has been made in the name of Respondent No.7 and his wife at the instance of a Minister and the grievance of the petitioner is that natural justice has been violated in not giving any scope of show cause to the petitioner. 2. The contention of the respondent is that although the house was allotted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1986 he was never in possession of the same and he had sub-let the same to Sheela Devi and once that Sheela Devi had also filed Title Suit No. 53 of 1991 before the Munsif at Saraikela against the Housing Board and also impleading the petitioner as defendant, but the suit was ultimately withdrawn by Sheela Devi. 3. According to the petitioner, the whole process of cancellation and allotment in favour of Respondent No. 7 and his wife Sheela Devi was made behind the back of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of show cause to him and that he had never sub-let the house in question rather according to him, while he went to his original home for the ailment and death of his near and dear one, the Respondent No. 7 and his wife Sheela Devi were put as Care Taker of the house during his absence but manupulating the same they had occupied the house after trespassing into the same. 4. 4. This sort of dispute cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction, From the records, it also transpires that the petitioner was asked through Chief Personnel Manager of TAYO on 2.6.11.1993 to occupy the house within one week next but according to the petitioner, although he received the information, he could not occupy the same as the suit was then pending in the civil court. It also transpires that there was an enquiry from the side of the Housing Board which was within the knowledge of the petitioner and when it was found that the petitioner was never residing in the allotted house since alter allotment and as such his allotment was cancelled. It also transpires that die petitioner through his Advocate issued a notice under Sec. 92 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act and Rules for filing a suit for redressal of his grievances but without doing so he has come to this Court to raise his grievance on the ground of natural justice. 5. He, who seeks natural justice must also come with clean hands. It seems that the petitioner being aware of situation was not taking proper steps and his attitude and behaviour was also not justified in the circumstances of the case. It cannot be said that the whole thing was done behind the back of the petitioner. At least the petitioner was in the knowledge of the situation going on. The factual dispute is definitely not within the ambit of this writ Court to be settled 6. Mr. N.K. Prasad, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit is not maintainable as there is a bar under Sec. 62 of the Act in question but I am not inclined to accept his views as the suit is barred only under Chapter-IX of the Act and not on other matters. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, but no order as to costs. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise his grievance in appropriate forum for redressal of the same.