M.KATJU, J. - (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 30.10.2002, Annexure -1 to the writ petition cancelling her licence to run a canteen in S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanast and a public call office (P.C.O.) within the premises of Rajkiya Mahila Chikitsalaya, Varanasi. It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that the petitioner was granted a licence to run a P.C.O. within the premises of Rajkiya Manila Chikitsalaya, Varanasl, by the order of Chief Medical Superintendent of the said hospital dated 21.10.2000 vide Annexure -3 to the writ petition. It is alleged that there is no complaint against her regarding running of the P.C.O. and she has invested a lot of money. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the petitioner was granted a licence for running a canteen within the premises of S.S.P.G. hospital vide order dated 24.9.2002, Annexure -4 to the writ petition. It is alleged that the petitioner has raised temporary construction and has invested one lac rupees in this business.
(3.) IT is alleged in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that the local M.L.A. wanted to get allotted the said premises for his own man and hence he made a complaint dated 27.10.2002 against the petitioner. It is alleged in paragraph 15 of the writ petition that on the basis of the said complaint without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 30.10.2002 was passed cancelling the licences for both the canteen as well as the P.C.O.;