Judgment :- 1. The above writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash, the proceedings of the first respondent in K. Dis. (H) 25803/86 (S/WK. Dis 88561/85 dated 23-1-1986) dated 30-10-1986 and consequently direct the refund of the money deposited by the petitioner by way of earnest money deposit and 3 months kist in respect of arrack shop No. 3/84-85, Sirkazhi Town Thanjavur District. 2. Having regard to the nature of disposal this writ petition deserves, it is unnecessary for me to refer to several claims made both in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as the counter-affidavit filed, except certain salient features of the case, relevant for considering the claim in question, which is set out both in the impugned order and the counter affidavit itself From the counter-affidavit, it is seen, that the petitioner was the successful bidder in respect of the arrack shop in question for a monthly rental of Rs. 40,110 and that he remitted Rs. 2500 as earnest money deposit and Rs. 20,055 towards half month kist and Rs. 1,00,275 towards the balance of the half months rental. While matter stood thus, and before the licence could be issued, it appears, that one R. Shanmugam challenged the confirmation dated 2-8-1984 and the first respondent by his proceedings dated 31-10-1984, set aside the order of confirmation. The first respondent also appears to have ordered for the re-sale of the shop since the writ petitioner was found to be disqualified person to participate in the auction sale. Thereupon, a resale appears to have been conducted on 5-1-1985 and by the time the sale was confirmed on 5-6-1985 and served on the successful bidder of resale on 21-6-1985, he expressed his unwillingness to take out licence at the fag end of the Excise Year which expired by 15-7-1985 and consequently, sought for refund of the money deposited by him. The first respondent, in his proceedings dated 23-1-1986, appears to have given concurrence for the refund of the money deposited by the successful bidder in the re-auction held. Thereupon, the petitioner applied for refund of the amounts paid by him, which, came to be rejected by the first respondent under the impugned order. The first respondent, in his proceedings dated 23-1-1986, appears to have given concurrence for the refund of the money deposited by the successful bidder in the re-auction held. Thereupon, the petitioner applied for refund of the amounts paid by him, which, came to be rejected by the first respondent under the impugned order. The reason which weighed with the first respondent to deny the claim for refund is that, he has suppressed the factum of his disqualification and participated in the auction and got confirmation of the auction in his favour and that therefore, the petitioner cannot get back refund of the amount deposited by him since the Government lost considerable revenue due to the non-functioning of the arrack shop during the Excise Year 1984-1985 and in the view of the first respondent, the petitioner was responsible for the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the confirmation in his favour was set aside, the petitioner, is entitled in law to the refund of the amount and his amounts cannot be withheld unlawfully. The respondents reiterate the reasoning of the first respondent in the impugned order that it was due to the auction of the writ petitioner that the State suffered revenue loss on account of non functioning of the arrack shop during the Excise Year in question and that therefore, the amount cannot be refunded. 4. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing on either side. The conduct of auction, grant of licences and the rights and liabilities of the department as well as the bidders or licences are governed and regulated by statutory Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. The relevant Rules for considering the claim in question would be Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules 1981. R. 20 and 21 of the said Rules, provide for confirmation of the sale by the District Collector. The matters relating to the resale of the shop and recovery of any deficiency, which is normally also said to be a notional loss, is governed and regulated by R. 21 of the said Rules. R. 20 and 21 of the said Rules, provide for confirmation of the sale by the District Collector. The matters relating to the resale of the shop and recovery of any deficiency, which is normally also said to be a notional loss, is governed and regulated by R. 21 of the said Rules. If the respondents want to fix any liability, which could be determined by them and recovered or adjusted as against the petitioner in respect of any sum lying to his credit, it should be a claim squarely falling within R. 21 of the Rules. Any other tortious claim or claim for damages outside the provisions contained in R. 21 of the said Rules have to be and could be agitated even by the State or authorities representing the State, only under the common law of the land before ordinary Civil Courts of the land and the respondents could not arrogate to themselves the authority or jurisdiction to decide such claims and hold the citizen liable for any such claim. After a careful consideration of the scope of the Rules, nature of the claims that would fall under R. 21 of the Rules referred to above, I am of the view, that the claim of the nature made against the petitioner could not be sustained under the said Rule. Admittedly, the confirmation in favour of the petitioner has been set aside, may be, on account of some lapses on his part in the manner in which he participated in the auction but that is no ground to still hold him responsible under the Rules for any sum after the confirmation of the auction itself is set aside though on the ground, that the petitioner was not a person eligible to participate in the auction. There is no question of any re-auction at his risk and responsibility and the provisions contained in R. 21, would be inappropriate to deal with such cases. As indicated earlier, if the respondents have any claim against the petitioner, such claims, could not be projected or assumed to be determined by virtue of any powers under R. 21 of the Rules and no liability could be fixed under the said Rule against the petitioner. As indicated earlier, if the respondents have any claim against the petitioner, such claims, could not be projected or assumed to be determined by virtue of any powers under R. 21 of the Rules and no liability could be fixed under the said Rule against the petitioner. Generally, claims for damages can and have got to be agitated by the Government also only like any other citizen or authority or institution before the ordinary common law courts and cannot be decided by the authorities themselves and particularly exercising powers under the Rules in question. R. 18 of the Rules also would initiate against such claims there being not much difference in refusal of confirmation or setting aside the order of confirmation by the Commissioner on appeal or revision. Consequently, the impugned order suffers serious infirmity in so far as it denies the refund to the petitioner of the amount, which he has deposited, and to which he is entitled legitimately under the Rules. The respondents have no right in law to withhold the amount and deny refund of the deposits made by the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby quashed and a mandamus shall issue to the respondents to refund the sum remitted by the petitioner within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The fact that this writ petition has been allowed, shall not stand in the way of the respondents vindicating their rights, if any, against the petitioner in the manner known to and in accordance with law, No costs.