( 1 ) ( 2 ) WITH the consent of counsel for the parties i propose to dispose of the petition. ( 3 ) BY way of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 13. 4. 2004 issued by respondent No. 1 and to restore the sponsorship to the petitioner. A direction has also been sought to respondent No. 2 to dispose of the application of petitioner dated 28. 2. 2000 and to allot land bearing Plot No. 4 psp, Sector 25, Ph III, Rohini, Delhi. ( 4 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that petitioner is a charitable trust and is imparting education to students in the filed of MBA, BBA,bjmc and mca. The petitioner applied to respondent no. 1 for grant of a No-Objection Certificate in respect of BBA and BCA courses which is condition for getting affiliation from the Guru gobind Singh Indraprastha University. The noc was granted by respondent No. 1 on 14. 7. 1999. The said NOC was renewed from time to time and was last renewed on 29. 5. 2003. The said NOC is valid and continues in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of the NOC, the petitioner applied for provisional affiliation which was granted by the University on 25. 8. 1999 in respect of bba course subject to the condition that the petitioner will ensure to shift the institution to a permanent site. The said provisional affiliation was also renewed from time to time and was last renewed on 22. 7. 2003. The Provisional affiliation is still valid and continues in favour of the petitioner. On 28. 2. 2000, the petitioner applied to respondent No. 2 for allotment of land. The respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner that before the land could be allotted, the petitioner would have to get a sponsorship letter from the concerned ministry/department of Delhi Administration. Thereafter, the petitioner applied to respondent No. 1 for grant of sponsorship. Vide letter dated 8. 3. 2000, respondent No. 1 granted sponsorship and recommended the case of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 for allotment of land. On 26. 6. 2002, respondent no. 1 granted NOC to the petitioner for running bjmc course. On 21. 7. 2003, the University granted provisional affiliation to conduct BJMC courses subject to the terms and conditions contained in the said letter. On 26. 6. 2002, respondent no. 1 granted NOC to the petitioner for running bjmc course. On 21. 7. 2003, the University granted provisional affiliation to conduct BJMC courses subject to the terms and conditions contained in the said letter. It is stated that the provisional affiliation is valid and continues in favour of the petitioner. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, vide letter dated 13. 4. 2004, respondent No. l withdrew the sponsorship granted to the petitioner vide letter dated 8. 3. 2000. It is alleged that no reason for withdrawing the sponsorship has been given nor any reason has been communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was also not given any show cause notice or any hearing before the sponsorship was withdrawn. The no-Objection Certificate granted by respondent No. 1 is still valid. The other similarly situated institutes have already been allotted land on the basis of sponsorship given by respondent NO. 1 whereas the petitioner has not been allotted the land and the sponsorship granted to it has been withdrawn without any reason. ( 6 ) THE Petition is opposed by the respondents. It is stated by respondent No. 1 that sponsorship of land was withdrawn because the petitioner was running BBA/bca course in the building for which the land was allotted by DDA for running MBA Course. Terms and conditions of the allotment of land were violated. The withdrawal was in accordance with the rules and on the basis of the inspection report. The petitioner has not sought permission from DDA for running bba/bca course on the land allotted to it to run mba course. However, it is conceded by respondent NO. 1 that no reasons for withdrawal were mentioned in the letter. The withdrawal was done on the report of an enquiry Office forwarded to respondent No. 1 by Land and Building Department. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 in its counter affidavit has stated that in a meeting of the Institutional allotment Committee of respondent No. 2 held on 13. 2. 2003 and 17. 2. 2003, the Committee recommended to allot a plot of land measuring 0. 5 acre, at Plot No. 4 PSP Area, Sector 25, rohini, Phase III, New Delhi Subject to sub-division of plot by the Planning Department. 2. 2003 and 17. 2. 2003, the Committee recommended to allot a plot of land measuring 0. 5 acre, at Plot No. 4 PSP Area, Sector 25, rohini, Phase III, New Delhi Subject to sub-division of plot by the Planning Department. The case of the petitioner for allotment of land was processed, but the allotment was not made because of withdrawal of the sponsorship by respondent NO. 1. It is also stated that as per the present policy. The allotment is to be made through auction/tender. ( 8 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents on record. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, respondent NO. 1 in its letter dated 13. 4. 2004 cancelling the sponsorship to petitioner NO. 1 has not assigned any reason for the said withdrawal. It is conceded that show cause notice was not given. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 also concedes that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Failure to give a show cause notice to the petitioner before cancellation/withdrawal of the sponsorship without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing violates the rights of the petitioner and also is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The order is non-speaking order wherein no reasons have been assigned for withdrawal/cancellation of the sponsorship. The petitioner was, in these circumstances entitled to a notice and a hearing before any such order could be passed. The petitioner s rights are prejudicially affected and it ought to have been given a hearing before any order was passed affecting his rights. It is settled law that orders passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without affording a hearing to party is liable to be struck down. The impugned letter dated 13th april, 2004 is a non-speaking order and does not disclose the reasons which forms the basis of the cancellation. The impugned letter cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme court reported as Mohinder Singh Gill and anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, new Delhi and Ors. reported in (1978) 1 SCC ( 10 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The letter dated 13. 4. 2004 (Annexure-K to the petition) is quashed. The respondent No. 2. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme court reported as Mohinder Singh Gill and anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, new Delhi and Ors. reported in (1978) 1 SCC ( 10 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The letter dated 13. 4. 2004 (Annexure-K to the petition) is quashed. The respondent No. 2. is directed to dispose of the petitioner s application for allotment of land within four weeks. No order as to costs.