Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner has filed the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records on the file of the first Respondent pertaining to G.O.(2T) No.68, dated 27.07.2006 and to quash the same. Further the Petitioner has sought for issuance of restoration Order of G.O.(2T) No.5, dated 19.01.2005. 2. According to the Petitioner, the first Respondent/The Secretary to Government (Housing), Secretariat, Madras passed an order in G.O.(2T) No.5, dated 19.01.2005 by allotting Cement Godown in Sathuvachari Phase-I, (by converting the Cement Godown as house site) to the Petitioner. Even before passing the said order, the said land was kept for future scheme of the Housing Board. By virtue of the power vested with the State Government allotted, the said site to the Petitioner as per G.O. referred to supra. 3. The G.O.(2T) No.5, dated 19.01.2005 was forwarded to the second Respondent. The second Respondent/The Managing Director, Housing Board, Nandanam, Madras, who in turn forwarded the same to the third Respondent/The Executive Engineer, Housing Board, Vellore, thereupon, the Petitioner preferred W.P.No.8931 of 2006 seeking the relief of directing the second Respondent/the Managing Director, Housing Board, Madras, to forward the allotment order to the third Respondent/the Executive Engineer, Housing Board, Vellore for implementation. 4. Due to the change of the Government, the new Government cancelled 1400 allotment orders passed by the earlier Government without even issuing show cause notice or asking for any explanation. The allotment order G.O.(2T) No.5, dated 19.01.2005 was cancelled by subsequent G.O.(2T) No.68, dated 27.07.2006, assigning the reason that the site/plot allotted to him came under the Housing Board Share and that the Housing Board had reserved the site/plot for future scheme. 5. According to the Petitioner, the Government had power to deal with the properties even if the site/plot is a Housing Board quota and future development was also considered as it was no longer required for any future development. Only the State Government by exercising its power, allotted the house site (by converting the cement godown) to the Petitioner in G.O.(2T) No.5, dated 19.01.2005. Now, without disclosing what is the future development propose and without issuing show cause notice behind his back cancelled the allotment order as per G.O.(2T) No.68, dated 27.07.2006. 6. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the Petitioner should have been given a show cause notice prior to the cancellation of the allotment order. Now, without disclosing what is the future development propose and without issuing show cause notice behind his back cancelled the allotment order as per G.O.(2T) No.68, dated 27.07.2006. 6. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the Petitioner should have been given a show cause notice prior to the cancellation of the allotment order. Only after receipt of his explanation and perusing the same, the cancellation order, dated 27.07.2006 ought to have been passed. 7. In short, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that without issuing show cause notice and without providing an opportunity of hearing the Petitioner (before passing the cancellation order), the very cancellation order passed in G.O.(2T) No.68, dated 27.07.2006 is against law and opposed to the principles of natural justice. 8. Per contra, the Learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 to 3 submits that even though the Petitioner was allotted the plot based on Government discretionary quota and the Cement Godown place as a special case was considered and converted into house site and given to the Petitioner (under Social Worker Category), the plot/site possession was not actually handed over to the Petitioner. 9. Subsequently, the original allotment in G.O.(2T)No.5, dated 19.01.2005 was cancelled as per G.O.(2T) No.68, dated 27.07.2006 by assigning the reason that Vellore Housing Board, Forest Division, Sathuvachari Phase-I, Cement Godown and its adjoining place came under the Housing Board share and also the said plot would be allotted for the future development scheme of the Housing Board and therefore, as the Government share, the said place could not be converted into the Cement Godown and allotted to the Petitioner and accordingly, rejected his request as per his application dated 21.03.2005. By G.O.(2T)No.68, dated 27.07.2006, the original allotment granted in favour of the Petitioner as per G.O.(2T) No.5, dated 19.01.2005 was cancelled. 10. The Petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.8931 of 2006 seeking for issuance of direction to the second Respondent in forwarding the house site allotment order passed by the first Respondent in G.O.(2T) No.5, dated 19.01.2005 to the third Respondent for implementation. 11. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court on 01.08.2006 because of the fact, the petition became infructuous as the Government passed an order in G.O.(2T) No.68, dated 27.07.2006 cancelling the earlier allotment made to the Petitioner on 19.01.2005. 11. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court on 01.08.2006 because of the fact, the petition became infructuous as the Government passed an order in G.O.(2T) No.68, dated 27.07.2006 cancelling the earlier allotment made to the Petitioner on 19.01.2005. Generally, in the administration matters procedure law should not ordinarily be construed as a mandatory one. Where a mistake is apparent on the face of record non-compliance of principles of natural justice would not make any difference in the considered of this Court. The concept of natural justice is termed as a synonym of fairness. The principles of natural justice are rested on human values. Assigning reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. 12. It is to be borne in mind that no hearing is required for revoking or cancelling an allotment of house site on Government discretionary quota. The Petitioner is entitled to be informed of the reasons after the cancellation order is made, as opined by this Court. 13. It is to be noted that the Petitioner in his undated application has requested for allotment of the Cement Godown in Sathuvachari Phase-I of Vellore Housing Division to convert the same as house site and accordingly, the original allotment was made on 19.01.2005. Subsequently, the said allotment was cancelled as per G.O.(2T) No.68, dated 27.07.2006. The first Respondent/The Secretary to Government(Housing), Secretariat, Madras has assigned the reasons for cancellation of the allotment made to the Petitioner. 14. Only if the Petitioner has justiciable enforceable legal right in his favour, he can seek the relief of Mandamus in calling for the records on the file of the first Respondent pertaining to G.O.(2T) No.68, dated 27.07.2006 and to quash the same etc. In the instant case on hand, in the cancellation order dated 27.07.2006 in G.O.(2T) No.68, the reasons have been assigned by the first Respondent by cancellation of allotment earlier made in favour of the Petitioner. 15. In the instant case on hand, in the cancellation order dated 27.07.2006 in G.O.(2T) No.68, the reasons have been assigned by the first Respondent by cancellation of allotment earlier made in favour of the Petitioner. 15. In view of the fact that the Petitioner has no justiciable enforceable legal right in his favour and that too when in the undated application he has prayed for an allotment of the Cement Godown in Sathuvachari Phase-I of Vellore Housing Division by converting the same into house site under Government discretionary quota, in regard to the cancellation order dated 27.07.2006 in G.O.(2T) No.68, dated 27.07.2006 he can not complain of violation of principals of natural justice for non-issuance of show cause notice (prior to the cancellation of an allotment order). Moreover, the principles of natural justice cannot be stretched too far. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.