JUDGMENT : Samapti Chatterjee, J. The petitioner filed the present writ petition assailing the impugned cancellation of license orders dated 19thDecember, 2009 and 3rd May, 2010 in respect of surplus land at premises no. 96/2 and 96/4 Karl Marx Sarani, Kolkata issued by Municipal Commissioner. 2. The premises no. 96/2 Karl Marx Sarani was initially leased out to the petitioner's father-in-law Ashutosh Das Chowdhury by an agreement dated 17th March, 1950 by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the said Corporation). The said Ashutosh Das Chowdhury (since deceased) erected a structure wall and tiles and asbestos roof and started a tea stall and residing therein. On the request of said Ashutosh Das Chowdhury a further piece of land comprised in premises no. 96/4 Karl Marx Sarani was also let out to the said Das Chowdhury by the corporation by an allotment order dated 7th June, 1963. On the request of said Das Chowdhury made on 28th December, 1968 the tenancy of premises no. 96/2 Karl Marx Sarani, Kolkata-700023 was transferred in favour of his son Tushar Kanti Das Chowdhury, the husband of the petitioner. The formal agreement in respect thereto was executed on 19thJune, 1975. After the death of Ashutosh Das Chowdhury on the request of petitioner's husband Tushar Kanti Das Chowhdury the allotment made in respect of the premises No. 96/4 Karl Marx Sarani was cancelled and by an order dated 5th December, 1972 and by virtue of a memo dated 14thDecember, 1972 the tenancy of premises no. 96/4 Karl Marx Sarani presently known as Circular Garden Rich Road, Kolkata-700023 was also allotted in favour of Tushar Kanti Das Chowdhury, the husband of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner's husband died on 24th May, 1984. Since then the petitioner continued to carry on the said business and time to time requested the respondent no. 1 to transfer the tenancy in the name of the petitioner. Vide Order dated 3rd May, 1985 the tenancy was transferred in favour of the petitioner and the terms of the tenancy contained in an agreement dated 21st March, 1989 was executed. The petitioner all along used to pay the Municipal rent and taxes in respect of the said premises. 1 to transfer the tenancy in the name of the petitioner. Vide Order dated 3rd May, 1985 the tenancy was transferred in favour of the petitioner and the terms of the tenancy contained in an agreement dated 21st March, 1989 was executed. The petitioner all along used to pay the Municipal rent and taxes in respect of the said premises. Unfortunately due to her ill health the petitioner faced a huge financial hardship as a result the petitioner was unable to pay the monthly rent in time for the period April 1997 to November 1998, although the petitioner repeatedly requested her men/staff to pay the rent but they failed to pay the same to the corporation. 4. Sometime in August 2000 the petitioner received a demand notice for payment for the period of April 1997 to November 1998 from the respondent no. 1 aggregating Rs. 23,018/- (Twenty three thousand eighteen only). The petitioner was under impression that the corporation will offer a schedule for arrear payment in installment as the petitioner approached the authority concerned and requested for making payment in installment due to her ill health as she had undergone open heart surgery. After recovering from her illness sometime in 2007 the petitioner approached the respondent authority in respect of payment of arrear rent dues and payable by the petitioner to the respondent authority and the petitioner also made representation on 17th August, 2007 which was duly received by the respondent no. 1 on 21st August, 2007 for making payment of arrear rent. Since the condition of the said building became dilapidated therefore, the petitioner made an application before the Assistant Engineer Building Department Borough-9 on 12th January, 2009 for repairing work and the said respondent no. 4 vide memo dated 2nd February, 2009 accorded approval to the petitioner to that effect. 5. The petitioner was shocked and astronished that all on a sudden on 19th December, 2009 the petitioner's license in respect of those premises were cancelled and the petitioner was asked to handover the peaceful vacant possession of those premises to the respondent authority. The petitioner on 5th January, 2010 made a representation to the Municipal Commissioner to re-consider her prayer sympathetically and to withdraw the impugned cancellation of license dated 19th December, 2009. The petitioner also forwarded a demand draft aggregating a sum of Rs. The petitioner on 5th January, 2010 made a representation to the Municipal Commissioner to re-consider her prayer sympathetically and to withdraw the impugned cancellation of license dated 19th December, 2009. The petitioner also forwarded a demand draft aggregating a sum of Rs. 23,018/- (twenty three thousand eighteen only) on 8th February, 2010 towards the arrear rents in favour of the corporation. But the respondent authority sat tight over the petitioner's letter dated 5th January, 2010 as well as dated 8th February, 2010 and suddenly on 19.02.2010 the respondent demanded an aggregate sum of Rs. 13,800/- (thirteen thousand eight hundred only) towards alleged posting of guard. 6. It was also submitted that despite request for reconsideration of the letter of cancellation dated 19th December, 2009 the Municipal Commissioner without granting any opportunity to the petitioner motivatedly, vindictively, whimsically and also arbitrarily issued the order dated 3rd May, 2010 thus involving the petitioner that the department concerned shall take possession of the KMC surplus land at the said premises immediately after service of the said order. 7. Mr. Arindam Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the impugned action on the part of the respondent authority is unfair, unjust, unwarranted and very much against the principle of natural justice. He also contended that the impugned cancellation letter dated 19th December, 2009 followed by the further letter dated 3rd May, 2010 suffered from illegality, arbitrariness and also patently contrary to Article 14, 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India and at the same time violative of principle of natural justice as the petitioner time to time made representations. Therefore Mr. Mukherjee contended that the impugned order should be quashed by allowing the present writ petition. 8. Mr. Ashoke Kumar Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the corporation/authority strongly argued that the petitioner repeatedly failed and neglected to carry out the directions time to time passed by the corporation authority. 9. Mr. Banerjee further contended that the petitioner was also given ample opportunity to submit the arrear rents but the petitioner failed and neglected to carry out the same. Therefore, question of considering the petitioner's prayer sympathetically by allowing the petitioner to deposit the arrear rent at this stage does not and cannot arise. 10. Mr. 9. Mr. Banerjee further contended that the petitioner was also given ample opportunity to submit the arrear rents but the petitioner failed and neglected to carry out the same. Therefore, question of considering the petitioner's prayer sympathetically by allowing the petitioner to deposit the arrear rent at this stage does not and cannot arise. 10. Mr. Banerjee also contended that on 22nd July 2009 due to urgent need for construction of health unit in the said corporation surplus land the corporation took a decision for vacating and taking possession of the said land. Therefore, Mr. Banerjee concluded his argument by submitting that the petitioner miserably failed to make out any case and the writ petition should be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court. 11. After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and after perusing the averments and records I find it is admitted position that the petitioner time to time requested the corporation authority to consider her case sympathetically as she suffered from various illness including open heart surgery. Not only that it is evident from the record that on 8th February, 2010 the petitioner forwarded a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 23,018/- (twenty three thousand eighteen only) towards the payment of the demand raised by the respondent no. 1 in the year 2000 but the respondent without paying any heed to the petitioner's representation and without also considering the demand draft forwarded on 8th February, 2010 stuck to its decision dated 19th December, 2009 and on the basis of that issued a further letter dated 3rd May, 2010 asking to vacate the premises which is unjust, unfair, unwarranted on the part of the respondent authority and also very much violative of natural justice and contrary to Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 12. It is evident that from the letter dated 2nd February, 2009 that approval was accorded in favour of the petitioner to carry on repairing work at the said premises. But curiously enough thereafter suddenly on 19th December, 2009 the impugned letter of cancellation of the license was issued by the respondent no. 1 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, though the petitioner made repeated representations to that effect. But no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. But curiously enough thereafter suddenly on 19th December, 2009 the impugned letter of cancellation of the license was issued by the respondent no. 1 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, though the petitioner made repeated representations to that effect. But no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. I cannot ignore the fact that for first time in the affidavit-in-opposition the corporation authority disclosed that on 22nd July, 2009 they have already taken a decision for construction of health unit in the petitioner's said tea stall after vacating and taking over possession of the surplus land of the petitioner. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the respondent authority had already taken decision on 22nd July 2009 to construct so-called health unit in the said surplus land after evicting the petitioner from the said land and for that reasons the impugned orders dated 12th December, 2009 and 3rd May, 2010 were issued without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also without considering the petitioner's representation and also totally ignoring the fact that on 2nd February, 2010 the petitioner forwarded a demand draft amounting to Rs. 23,018/- (twenty three thousand eighteen only) in favour of the corporation authority. Before taking the extreme decision like cancellation of license, in my considered view, an opportunity of hearing ought to be given to the petitioner as that business is the only source of income to maintain her livelihood. Therefore, in my opinion the impugned orders dated 19th December, 2009 and 3rd May, 2010 could not be sustained. 13. Accordingly the impugned order dated 19th December, 2009 and 3rd May, 2010 are hereby quashed/set aside. I direct the respondent authority specially the Municipal Commissioner to take a decision afresh in respect of the petitioner's license after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of communication of the order and communicate the decision to the petitioner within 2 weeks thereafter. Till such decision is taken by the authority and communicated to the petitioner as indicated above the interim order of status quo already passed in this matter be continued. 14. With these directions this writ petition is allowed without any order as to costs. 15. Urgent photostat copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties after fulfilling all the formalities.