ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.3.2004, passed by the Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board (respondent no. 3), whereby, the industrial Flat No. S-23/5 of Adityapur Housing Colony was allotted to the respondent no. 6 and also for quashing the order dated 9.12.2002, whereby the respondents have cancelled the order of allotment of Flat No. S-23/5 of Adityapur Housing Colony made in favour of the petitioner. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was an employee of Tayo Rolls Limited (formerly known as Tata Yodogawa Ltd.). The respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board (in short to be referred as 'Board') constructed several houses/flats in the locality of Adityapur, under the Government of India subsidized Housing Scheme for industrial workers and invited applications from industrial workers/staffs for allotment of the same on payment as per the conditions mentioned under the scheme. The petitioner made application in prescribed proforma before the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (now Seraikela Kharsawan) for allotment of a flat. Pursuant to the application of the petitioner, the Bihar State Housing Board allotted Flat No. S-23/5 at Adityapur (hereinafter called the said flat) in favour of the petitioner on 2.1.1978 and he came in possession of the said flat on leasehold basis. Subsequently, in the year 2000, the Bihar State Housing Board invited applications from the concerned allottees for settlement! sale of the concerned flats and in response to the said proposal, the petitioner made application dated 30.8.2000 and the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 4.9.2000 communicated the petitioner regarding the decision of the Board to settle the flat in question in his favour on complying the payment conditions as mentioned in the letter of allotment. Thereafter, a registered conveyance was also executed by the competent authority of the respondent-Board, but the respondent authorities withheld the said document and did not supply the same to the petitioner. The petitioner, in compliance of the terms and conditions of the sale, paid all the amount in installments. In the year 2001, the petitioner allowed his sisterin-law (respondent no. 6) to reside temporarily in the said flat, however in March 2004, the petitioner came to know that an allotment letter contained in memo no. 643 dated 5.3.2004 has been issued by the respondent no. 3, whereby the said flat has been allotted to the respondent no. In the year 2001, the petitioner allowed his sisterin-law (respondent no. 6) to reside temporarily in the said flat, however in March 2004, the petitioner came to know that an allotment letter contained in memo no. 643 dated 5.3.2004 has been issued by the respondent no. 3, whereby the said flat has been allotted to the respondent no. 6and thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice to the respondent no. 3 on 22.3.2004, but the same was not responded. Hence the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of cancellation of the petitioner's allotment has been made behind his back in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioner never sublet the said flat to the respondent no. 6, rather the actual fact is that in the year 2002, the petitioner went to his native place at Sama~tipur (Bihar) with his family to look after his old aged parents and therefore allowed the respondent no. 6 who is his wife's sister (sister-in-law) to stay in the flat temporarily. It is further submitted that the driving licence of the petitioner was made in the year 1985 in which the address of the petitioner has been mentioned as Flat No. 8-23/5 which clearly shows that the petitioner was residing in the said flat. It is further submitted that the petitioner also paid all the water tax and sewage charge till the year 2004 to Adityapur Notified Area. It is also submitted that the petitioner has paid full amount of the flat and nothing is due against him. The petitioner is in dire need of the said flat, as he has retired from service and has no other property in Jamshedpur except the said flat. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 6 is a housewife and has submitted a false certificate of employment before the respondents far allotment of the said flat. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that the petitioner has raised disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the petitioner, soon after the allotment of the said flat, sublet the same to the respondent no. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that the petitioner has raised disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the petitioner, soon after the allotment of the said flat, sublet the same to the respondent no. 6 and as such he violated clauses 9, 10, 16, 17 and 24 of the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement. The order of cancellation of allotment was communicated to the petitioner's employer vide letter no. 2787 dated 9.12.2002, as the allotment of the flat was made through the employer. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted that the said flat was given to the respondent no. 6 for residing in the same. The petitioner only deposited 50% of the tentative value of the flat and no receipt in support of the rest payment of installments has been filed which also suggests the falsity of the petitioner's claim regarding payment of all the installments. It is also submitted that the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled in the year 2002 and the allotment in favour of the respondent no. 6 was made in the year 2004 and thus the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the officials of the Board found that the petitioner was not in possession of the said flat and he sublet it to the respondent no. 6 and therefore the allotment order of the petitioner has been rightly cancelled. Since, the allotment was made through the employer, the •Ietter of cancellation was also sent to the petitioner's employer. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 6 submits that respondent no. 6 applied for the allotment of flat on rental basis appertaining to Flat No. S-23/5 under Jharkhand State Housing Board, situated at Adityapur and thereafter the local allotment Committee under the signature of Executive Engineer of the Board allotted the said flat in favour of the respondent no. 6 and handed over the possession on 9.3.2004. It is further submitted that the allotment of the said flat in favour of the petitioner was cancelled due to violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment. 6 and handed over the possession on 9.3.2004. It is further submitted that the allotment of the said flat in favour of the petitioner was cancelled due to violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment. It is also submitted that the petitioner has alleged fraud and connivance with the respondent no. 6 in the writ petition which is not entertainable, as the same requires strict proof. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the flat in question was allotted to the petitioner by the respondent-Board. The respondents have alleged that since the petitioner has violated the terms and condition of the allotment by subletting it to the respondent no. 6, the same has been cancelled. The petitioner has 'denied the allegation by stating that the respondent no. 6 is his sister-in-law and the said flat was not sublet to her, rather she was allowed to reside in it tempoi"arily. Both the parties have raised certain disputed question of fact which cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. However, it is a settled principle of law that a writ petition would be maintainable even in a contractual matter if there is violation of the principles of natural justice while affecting the legal right of a person. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given much stress to the argument that the impugned order of cancellation of allotment has been passed without serving any show cause and as such the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice to be followed by the Government functionaries. Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in the case of Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority & Am.. vs. MIs Fillfured Marketing and Manufacturing Corporation & Ors. reported in 2014(1) JLJR 2'ao in para 9 held as under:- 9. Cancellation of allotment is a harsh action, for which issuance of show cause notice must be effective indicating the specific violations. Individual notices to the allottees must have preceded the public notice. But the public notice was issued in the "Prabhat Khabar" on 16.7.2011 and only thereafter individual notices were issued to the allottees on 18.8.2012, which, in our considered opinion, cannot be said to be an effective show cause notice. 7. Individual notices to the allottees must have preceded the public notice. But the public notice was issued in the "Prabhat Khabar" on 16.7.2011 and only thereafter individual notices were issued to the allottees on 18.8.2012, which, in our considered opinion, cannot be said to be an effective show cause notice. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of Cantonment Board, Dinapore: Union of India vs. Taramani Devi reported in AIR 1992 SC 61 has held that no order should be passed behind the back of a person prejudicial in nature to him, when it entails civil consequences. One of the cardinal rules of administrative functioning impinging upon the rights of citizens or a group of individuals is the duty to adopt a fair procedure and give adequate opportunity to the party likely to be affected by any adverse decision. It is well-established that requirement of natural justice and fair play mandate that an adverse order ought to be preceded by a show cause notice and adequate opportunity. 'Such notice too has to be specific informing - the concerned party about the particulars of the allegations and the tentative action proposed. The object of these is to elicit information and explanation so that the decision maker takes cognizance of such factors, which are vital in the decision making process. 8. In the present case, the respondent Board has tried to justify its action by stating that the order of cancellation of allotment of the flat was communicated to the employer of the petitioner. This action has been taken by the respondent-Board only after the cancellation of allotment. The respondent Board has not controverted the averment of the petitioner by bringing on record any document to show that before cancellation of the allotment, the petitioner was served any show cause notice. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondent no. 2 is directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in relation to the allotment of the Industrial Flat No. 5-23/5 of Adityapur Housing Colony. In the said proceeding, the respondent no. 6 may also appear and put forth her case before respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent no. 6 shall take appropriate decision in relation to the allotment of the flat in question. Till the said decision is taken by the respondent no. In the said proceeding, the respondent no. 6 may also appear and put forth her case before respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent no. 6 shall take appropriate decision in relation to the allotment of the flat in question. Till the said decision is taken by the respondent no. 2, the order dated 5.3.2004 and 9.12.2002 (Annexure-5 & Ar:mexure-9) shall be kept in abeyance which shall be dependent upon the outcome of the decision taken by the respondent no. 2. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. .