ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to transfer the allotted plot to the petitioner being a successful allottee of the Jharkhand State Housing Board (in short "Housing Board") in view of allotment letter dated 29.9.2011. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was served show cause notice vide letter dated 17.11.2016 relating to the cancellation of allotment of plot no. HAC-35 and as such the same has also been challenged by way of filing of I.A. No. 1018 of 2017. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the Housing Board published an advertisement dated 29.6.2011 inviting offers from the public at large for various categories of persons for allotment of plots. The petitioner submitted the application for allotment of plot in the prescribed form under the "handicap quota" and the lotteries for different categories were held on different dates. The lottery under the handicapped quota to which the petitioner had applied was held on 24.9.2011. Finally, vide order dated 29.9.2011 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), the petitioner was allotted HIG Plot No. HAC-35 at Harmu, Ranchi under the handicapped quota. The petitioner deposited considerable amount towards the allotment of the plot, however all of sudden, Housing Board came out with the paper publication by which it stayed the allotment process though it was never informed to the petitioner. After the inquiry, the petitioner came to know that vide letter dated 21.3.2015, the Government of Jharkhand decided to cancel the lottery held on 20.8.2011 and pursuant thereto the Housing Board also cancelled the said allotment. As the petitioner's allotment was made vide lottery held on 24.9.2011, he made representation on 26.3.2015 for allotment and giving possession of the plot but the respondents sat tight over the matter. Thereafter, the respondent-Housing Board vide letter dated 7.5.2015 informed the petitioner that the plot allotted to him is required by the State Government for beautification of Harmu River and sought consent of the petitioner for allotment of any alternative plot. The petitioner vide letter dated 11.5.2015 also consented to the Housing Board, however with a condition that he may be allotted any alternative plot of same area. The petitioner subsequently came to know that on 15.10.2015, he has been given a plot of 1800 sq.ft. The petitioner vide letter dated 11.5.2015 also consented to the Housing Board, however with a condition that he may be allotted any alternative plot of same area. The petitioner subsequently came to know that on 15.10.2015, he has been given a plot of 1800 sq.ft. and thus he objected to the Housing Board vide letter dated 15.12.2015 and requested inter alia that he may be allotted a plot having an area of at least, 2400-2800 sq.ft. but the respondent sat tight over the matter which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1018 of 2017 seeking challenge to the show cause notice dated 17.11.2016 issued by the Estate Officer of the Housing Board for cancellation of the allotment of HAC-35. The said I.A. No. 1018 of 2017 was allowed to be treated as the part of the writ petition. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the show cause notice dated 17.11.2016 issued by the respondent-Estate Officer, Housing Board is without jurisdiction, as in the said show cause notice, the alleged irregularity in the lottery held on 20.8.2011 has been mentioned, whereas the petitioner was allotted the plot in the lottery held on 24.9.2011. It is further submitted that in the show cause notice, there is reference of the Letter No. 192 dated 21.3.2015, which has already been quashed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 1346 of 2015 and other analogous cases. It is also submitted that the inquiry held on 2.10.2012 was with respect to the lottery held on 20.8.2011 and 26.10.2012 and on that basis, no show cause notice could have been issued to the petitioner. It would be evident from the letter dated 14.5.2015 that the Housing Board had agreed to allot a plot having area of 1800 sq.ft. though the petitioner objected the same and consented for allotment of a land of same measurement or at least having an area of 2400-2500 sq.ft. It is also submitted that by the aforesaid letter dated 14.5.2015, the Executive Engineer, Housing Board, Ranchi informed the Estate Officer of the Housing Board that an alternative plot has been identified as Plot No. H/182-A in lieu of Plot No. HAC/35 earlier allotted to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of• the respondent nos. It is also submitted that by the aforesaid letter dated 14.5.2015, the Executive Engineer, Housing Board, Ranchi informed the Estate Officer of the Housing Board that an alternative plot has been identified as Plot No. H/182-A in lieu of Plot No. HAC/35 earlier allotted to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of• the respondent nos. 3 and 4 submits that as per the instruction of the Urban Development & Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand, the Housing Board issued show cause notice to all the allottees including the petitioner by intimating that many irregularities were noticed in the said lottery. It is further submitted that the allottees have been asked to submit their reply as to why the allotment of plots made through the lottery held on 20.8.2011 and 24.9.2011 be not cancelled. Since, the petitioner has already submitted reply to the show-cause, which is pending for final decision of the Housing Board, the present writ petition is premature. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was allotted a HIG Plot No. HAC-35 at Harmu, Ranchi under the handicap quota as per the lottery held on 24.9.2011 and the payment of 25% of the value of land has been made by the petitioner to the respondent-Housing Board. On the basis of the decision of the State Government dated 21.3.2015, the Housing Board vide letter dated 7.4.2015 decided to cancel the allotment on the basis of the report of the enquiry committee which found certain irregularities in the allotment of the plots. Several writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C) No. 1346 of 2015 and analogous cases were filed in this Court challenging the government's decision dated 21.3.2015 and the Housing Board's letter dated 7.4.2015, which were finally disposed of by quashing the letters dated 21.3.2015 and 7.4.2015 having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the Housing Board issued show cause notices to all the allottees including the petitioner seeking reply as to why the allotments of respective plots made through lotteries should not be cancelled. Thereafter, the Housing Board issued show cause notices to all the allottees including the petitioner seeking reply as to why the allotments of respective plots made through lotteries should not be cancelled. Since it is the stage where show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner seeking his reply against the cancellation of his allotment, before coming into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to go through the scope of interference at the stage issuance of show cause notice. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. Vicco Laboratories reported in (2007)13 SCC 270 has dealt with the scope of interference at the stage of show cause notice and held as under:- "22. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the concerned authorities and to satisfy the concerned authorities about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the concerned authorities is the normal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a Show Cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show cause notice. The interference at the show cause notice petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vicco Laboratories (supra), has explained the scope of interference by the writ court at the stage of show cause notice. It has been held that if the show cause notice is issued without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, the writ court may interfere even at the stage of show cause notice. 9. It has been held that if the show cause notice is issued without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, the writ court may interfere even at the stage of show cause notice. 9. In the present case, it appears from the record that the inquiry was done with regard to the lottery held on 20.8.2011 and thereafter several irregularities were found and finally vide order dated 21.3.2015, the Government took decision to cancel the lottery. However, in the said letter, no reference has been made with regard to the lottery held on 24.9.2011. In spite of the decision of the Government dated 21.3.2015, the Housing Board made correspondence with the petitioner vide letter dated 7.5.2015 regarding the allotment of alternative plot. It also appears from the letter dated 14.5.2015 (Annexure 12/1) that the Executive Engineer of the Housing Board recommended for allotment of alternative plot having area of 1800 sq.ft., which also goes to show that the lottery held on 24.9.2011 was never in dispute. The petitioner has been served show cause notice only after the judgment dated 10.12.2015 passed by this court in W.P.C. No. 1346 of 2015 with analogous cases whereby the order of cancellation of allotment was set aside having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. On careful perusal of the show cause notice dated 17.11.2016, it clearly transpires that the said show cause notice has been issued highlighting the irregularities conducted in the lottery held on 20.8.2011. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has not been allotted the plot on the basis of the lottery held on 20.8.2011, rather he has been allotted the plot after being successful in the lottery held on 24.9.2011 in which, no irregularity has been found as per the inquiry report. Moreover, it is noticeable that only seven persons participated in the lottery held on 24.9.2011 under the handicap quota and none of the participants of the said lottery came forward alleging any irregularity in the lottery held on 24.9.2011. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the show cause notice dated 17.11.2016 issued to the petitioner in relation to the cancellation of allotment of plot no. HAC-35 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the show cause notice dated 17.11.2016 issued to the petitioner in relation to the cancellation of allotment of plot no. HAC-35 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 4 is directed to allot a suitable plot to the petitioner within a period of (eight) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.