Anil Dev Singh, J. (Oral) ( 1 ) THE petitioner calls in question the order dated August 13, 1996 (Annexure P-7) whereby allotment of flat No. 1707, Kalyan Vas, Delhi, in his favour was cancelled on the ground of alleged subletting. The necessary facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows :- ON July 1, 1988 the petitioner was allotted quarter No. 1707, Kalyan Vas, Delhi. Vide notice dated July 21, 1995 the allottees of the flats in Kalyan Vas, Delhi, including the petitoner, were asked to vacate their respective flats as the same were declared unsafe and unfit for habitation. It appears that in the beginning the petitioner had some hesitation in vacating the premises, but subsequently he is stated to have vacated the same. On September 11, 1995 the petitioner made representations to the respondents for analternative accommodation on September 11, 1995. However, no alternative accommodation was provided to him. On August 13, 1996 the Joint Secretary (Landb/pwd) cancelled the allotment of the petitioner in respect of flat No. 1707, Kalyan Vas, Delhi, on the ground of subletting. ( 2 ) THE short point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent before issuing the order dated August 13, 1996 failed to give any notice to the petitioner calling upon him to explain the position thereby violating the principles of natural justice. ( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit it has not been stated that a show cause notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondent candidly admits that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner before cancelling his allotment. Therefore, the admitted position is that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to show cause against the action which has been taken against him. It is well settled that the person against whom any adverse action is to be taken must be given opportunity so that he has a say in the matter. Since the principles of natural justice have been violated by the respondent, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order dated August 13, 1996 is hereby quashed. The consequence of this order would be that the respondent shall consider the request of the petitioner for alternative accommodation.