ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in Ref. No. BCCL/GM(A)Sect./F-167/2015 dated 4.6.2015 whereby, the allotment of canteen at Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad in favour of the petitioner No. 1 has been cancelled. The petitioners have alternatively prayed to rehabilitate them with any other suitable job. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the canteen at Koyala Bhawan, Dhanbad had been allotted to one M/s Fauji Caterers, which had left the canteen without giving any notice to the respondents. Thereafter, on an application of the petitioner No.1, the respondents decided to allot the canteen to him on trial basis. Consequently, the work order was issued to the petitioner No. 1 vide letter dated 1.2.1985 wherein it was mentioned that the formal order will follow after getting satisfied with the job. The petitioner No.1, thereafter, started running the canteen. Suddenly, the petitioner No.1 was served with a show cause notice dated 6.6.2012 under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1971') asking it to submit its reply before the Estate Officer as to why it should not be evicted from the said premises. The petitioner No. 1 filed reply to the show cause notice, but the Estate Officer vide order dated 22.10.2012, held the petitioner No. 1 to be an unauthorized occupant and directed it to vacate the premises. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 was issued notice under Section 5 of the Act, 1971 for evicting the canteen premises by 6.11.2012, which was challenged before this Court by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6619 of 2012 and vide order dated 8.11.2012, the respondents were directed not to take any step for eviction of the petitioner No. 1 till the statutory appeal and necessary petition is moved by the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1 filed Misc. Appeal No. 179 of 2012 before the District Court, Dhanbad, which was allowed vide order dated 29.11.2014 and the order of the Estate Officer, Dhanbad was quashed. Thereafter, the respondents served a notice bearing No. Ref. The petitioner No.1 filed Misc. Appeal No. 179 of 2012 before the District Court, Dhanbad, which was allowed vide order dated 29.11.2014 and the order of the Estate Officer, Dhanbad was quashed. Thereafter, the respondents served a notice bearing No. Ref. BCCU G M(A)/Sectt./F-167/2014/409 dated 24.7.2014 to the petitioner No.1 whereby, it was asked to submit its reply on the ground that one Sri R.B Srivastava, Food Safety Officer, Dhanbad in his inspection note No. 74/14015 dated 23.7.2014 indicated that the petitioner No. 1 does not possess the required registration under the Food & Safety Standard Act, 2006 and neatness and sanitation of the canteen are also not up to the mark. The petitioner No. 1 submitted its reply on 30.7.2014 stating that at the time of inspection, Shri. R.B. Shrivastava had no authority to inspect any premises. The petitioner No.1 is having registration under the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, valid for the year 2011-13 and 2014-16 and the said registration is valid till the year 2016. Subsequently, the respondents received several representations from the employees alleging non-maintenance of hygiene standards in the canteen premises and, thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 was again served with a letter bearing Ref. No. BCCL/GM(A)/Sect./F-167/2015/82 dated 21.2.2015 whereby, it was asked to submit explanation regarding the steps taken by it to improve the food catering facility in the canteen. The petitioner No. 1 submitted its reply to the said letter, however, another notice bearing Ref. No. BCCL/GM(A)/Sect./ F-167/2015/161 dated 7.5.2015 was served to the petition No. 1 for running the canteen in unhygienic way. The petitioner No. 1 submitted its reply to the said notice on 29.5.2015, however, the respondent No.4 passed the order contained in Ref. No.BCCL/GM(A)/Sect./F-167/2015 dated 4.6.2015 cancelling the allotment of canteen and directing the petitioner No. 1 to vacate the canteen premise. The petitioner filed representation on 5.6.2015 for recalling the said order, but of no consequence. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that since the date of allotment of the canteen, it had been catering to the food and refreshment requirements of the employees of the respondent-BCCL at subsidized rate and there had been no complaint with regard to the services provided by it. The respondents from time to time had been giving suggestion for the better functioning of the canteen. The respondents from time to time had been giving suggestion for the better functioning of the canteen. The respondent-BCCL had also been offering electricity, water etc. to the petitioner No. 1 at subsidized rate and regulating the price list of the canteen. It is further submitted that one Reference Case No. 41/90 was filed for absorption of the employees of the canteen wherein the Management of M/s BCCL deposed that though building space, electricity, coal, furniture and water were provided to the petitioners, yet there' is no employer-employee relationship between the Management and the canteen workers. Moreover, at the time of inspection dated 5.5.2015, Shri A.B. Srivastava, Food Safety Officer, Dhanbad was already restrained from discharging his duty vide letter No. 182 dated 26.4.2014 issued by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Dhanbad in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 91/2013 and as such the purported inspection carried out by him is of no legal consequence. The petitioners have been running the canteen since 1985 and their right of livelihood cannot be snatched away by the respondents in the manner as has been done. The respondents are not justified in cancelling the allotment of canteen, which has been properly run by the petitioners without any complaint from any corner. The impugned order has been passed with preoccupied mind, as even the reply to the show cause notice dated 29.5.2015 has not been taken into consideration. The respondent No. 4 is not the competent authority to pass the impugned order of cancellation of allotment of the canteen. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioners have no legal right to remain in occupation of the canteen, as the allotment of the said canteen has already been cancelled vide order dated 4.6.2015. The license is defined under Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, which is liable to be revoked in terms with Section 60 of the said Act and if the petitioners have any grievance, they can move before the appropriate Civil Court. The canteen premise has already been vacated by the petitioner No. 1 and the possession of the canteen has also been taken over by the respondent-BCCL and the said canteen is now being run departmentally. The canteen premise has already been vacated by the petitioner No. 1 and the possession of the canteen has also been taken over by the respondent-BCCL and the said canteen is now being run departmentally. The petitioner No.1 was allowed to run the canteen on trial basis and no formal order was ever issued to the petitioner No.1, which was also not serving the food articles at subsidized rate. Moreover, the canteen was not being run in a hygienic manner and as such, considering the health of the employees, the allotment of canteen in favour of the petitioner No. 1 has been cancelled. The order for running the said canteen was issued on 1.2.1985 by the Administrative Officer while the order dated 4.6.2015 has been issued by the Deputy General Manager (Administration), M/s BCCL, who is also the Head of the Department of Administration. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the canteen in question was allotted to the petitioner on trial basis in the year 1985. The relevant paragraph of the allotment letter is quoted as under: "With reference to your letter dated 5.11.1984 and subsequent discussion with the undersigned, you are hereby awarded contract for running Koyla Bhawan Canteen with immediate effect on a trial basis. The formal order will follow after satisfaction of job." 6. In the allotment letter itself, it was clearly mentioned that the said canteen was allotted to the petitioner No. 1 on trial basis and the formal order will follow after satisfaction of job. The respondents have stated that no formal letter of allotment was ever issued to the petitioner No.1 and the said fact has not been denied by the petitioner No.1. In view of such factual position, the petitioner No. 1 has no legal right to continue in possession of the said canteen on the ground that it had been running the canteen for the last 30 years. On perusal of the pleadings on record, it transpires that pursuant to the complaints received from the employees of M/s BCCL as also from the Trade Unions regarding the unhygienic condition of the canteen, the respondents issued show cause notice dated 21.2.2015, which was replied by the petitioner No. 1 on 12.3.2015. On perusal of the pleadings on record, it transpires that pursuant to the complaints received from the employees of M/s BCCL as also from the Trade Unions regarding the unhygienic condition of the canteen, the respondents issued show cause notice dated 21.2.2015, which was replied by the petitioner No. 1 on 12.3.2015. In the said reply, the petitioner No.1 has not denied the allegation of the Management of M/s BCCL, however, it demanded some more facilities to improve the condition of the canteen. The respondents not getting satisfied with the reply of the petitioner No. 1 again vide letter dated 7.5.2015, asked it as to why in spite of warning, the canteen is still being run in unhygienic condition. In the letter dated 7.5.2015, the reference was also made to the inspection dated 5.5.2015 carried out in the canteen wherein several hygiene standards were not found up to the mark and as such the petitioner No. 1 was asked to submit its reply to the said letter dated 7.5.2015 annexing the relevant documents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner No. 1 has given much stress to his argument that the reply of the petitioner No. 1 was submitted on 29.5.2015, but the same was not considered while passing the impugned order. However, it appears that in the said reply dated 29.5.2015, the petitioner No. 1 has almost reiterated its earlier reply dated 30.7.2014 and has again demanded various facilities from the Management of MIs BCCL to improve the condition of the canteen. Since the earlier reply of the petitioner No. 1 was not found satisfactory by the respondents, the reply dated 29.5.20.15 would not have made any material difference in the decision of the Management. Thus, in view thereof, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner No.1 due to non-consideration of its reply dated 29.5.2015. In both the replies, the petitioner No. 1 has not informed the respondents that the canteen is being run in an hygienic condition, rather the petitioner No. 1 made counter allegations against the Management of M/s BCCL itself that it is not being provided sufficient facilities to run the canteen properly. Since the respondents have taken the impugned action after receiving several complaints, the petitioner No. 1 cannot allege that the respondents have evicted it in arbitrary manner. Since the respondents have taken the impugned action after receiving several complaints, the petitioner No. 1 cannot allege that the respondents have evicted it in arbitrary manner. The Management is duty bound to look after the welfare including the health condition of the employees. Moreover, it is the stand of the Management that at present the canteen is in possession of the Management and a departmental canteen is being run in the said canteen premises. This Court is also not unmindful of the fact that the petitioner No. 1 was only allowed to run the canteen on trial basis and no formal allotment was made in its favour to run the canteen. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in the impugned order contained in Ref. No. BCCL/GM(A)Sect./F-167/2015 dated 4.6.2015. So far as the alternative prayer of the petitioners for their rehabilitation/accommodation in other job is concerned, no such direction can be issued to the respondents in view of the fact that the respondents are at present running the canteen departmentally. 9. The present writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. I.A. No. 1890 of 2016 and I.A. No. 6437 of 2016 also stand disposed of accordingly.