Judgment : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in G.O.(1D) No.100, Housing and Urban Development (HB5(1) Department, dated 8.1.2008 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to fix the final cost for the shop allotted to her. 2. Heard Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.RM.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.V.Anandhamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the was a social worker in Namakkal Town doing various activities to help the down trodden. By G.O.Ms.No.1574, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 24.12.1991, the Government decided to reserve 15% of the Housing Plots in all allotment Schemes of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB), to persons like the petitioner. The second respondent formed a Housing Scheme at Namakkal known as “Kaveri Nagar Housing Scheme” and completed the formalities with regard to Phase-I of the said Scheme. In the said Scheme, some provisions were made for commercial plots. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the plot was allotted to her, but unfortunately, her allotment was cancelled. Though various averments have been made in the affidavit, the short point involved in this case is whether the allotment issued to the petitioner can be cancelled without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. Admittedly, in this case, no opportunity was given to the petitioner before cancellation of her allotment. 5. The Madurai Bench of this Court, while deciding the similar issue, in W.P. (MD) No.3579 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008 and in W.P.(MD) Nos.3854 to 3856 of 2008 dated 26.10.2010, cancelled the similar impugned orders in those writ petitions, holding that the allotment cannot be cancelled without giving an opportunity to the petitioners or the persons who is likely to be affected. 6. As the petitioner in this case is also similarly placed, taking note of the consideration and applying the decisions of the Madurai Bench of this Court, mentioned supra, the writ petition is allowed. However, liberty is given to the second respondent to give notice of hearing and pass final orders, within two months from the date of receipt of this order, after complying with the principles of natural justice. Till such time, the petitioner should not be disturbed. 7. However, liberty is given to the second respondent to give notice of hearing and pass final orders, within two months from the date of receipt of this order, after complying with the principles of natural justice. Till such time, the petitioner should not be disturbed. 7. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.