P.Thangavel, J.: This writ appeal has been filed by the respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition as appellants against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28.10.1995 and made in W.P. No.7649 of 1984 on the file of this High Court. 2. The writ petitioner, who is the first respondent in this writ appeal has been engaged in the business of sale of arrack in retail in Thanjavur District since, 1982. The first respondent herein was a successful bidder and licencee of arrack shop bearing No.6 of Thanjavur Municipality for the excise year 1983-84 on a monthly rental of Rs.1,07,800. The notified area for arrack shop No.6 was specified as ward Nos.30, 34 and 35. The auction for arrack shop No.6 for the excise year 1984-85 was published by the Collector of Thanjavur District on 25.4.1984. Wards Nos.30. 34 and 35 were specified as notified area for the abovesaid arrack shop No.6. The first respondent herein was the highest bidder for arrack shop No.6 and the monthly rent accepted by the first respondent herein in the bid was Rs.1,54,100 per month. The bid was confirmed by the Collector of the District in his proceedings dated 9.6.1984 and the same was received by the fist respondent herein on 19.6.1984. The first respondent herein had deposited a sum of Rs.4,62,300 towards three months rent including a sum of Rs.3,85,250 representing 2-1/2 months rent deposited by him. The application submitted by the first respondent herein to 4th appellant for issue of licence was returned by him along with the proceedings dated 30.6.1984 stating that the site chosen by the first respondent herein to locate arrack shop No.6 is within 150 metres of the Deaf and Dumb school. The application resubmitted by the first respondent herein was again returned with proceedings of the 4th appellant dated 9.7.1984 on the very same ground. The first respondent herein had sent a detailed representation on 10.7.1984 along with a plan to show the site chosen by him to locate the arrack shop No.6 stating that the said site is at a distance of 250 metres from the abovesaid school. The third appellant had sent a memo to the first respondent herein on 16.7.1984 stating that the site chosen by the first respondent herein lies within Ward No.31 which is not a notified area for arrack shop No.6 of Thanjavur Town. The third appellant had sent a memo to the first respondent herein on 16.7.1984 stating that the site chosen by the first respondent herein lies within Ward No.31 which is not a notified area for arrack shop No.6 of Thanjavur Town. The first respondent herein was informed to select another building within the notified area and to apply for licence within a week, failing which the arrack shop No.6 will be re-auctioned at the risk of the first respondent herein. The verification made by the first respondent herein revealed that major portion of the notified area for arrack shop No.6 during the excise year 1983-84 had ceased to be the part of Ward Nos.30, 34 and 35 due to change of areas in Wards of Thanjavur Municipal Town before holding bye-election there. The areas included in the abovesaid wards consisted of fashionable and upper class residential houses who can hardly be expected to patronise or require arrack shops in that area. There is mutual mistake on the part of the first respondent herein and the appellants with regard to the areas ceased to exist and included as part of Ward Nos.30, 34 and 35. Had it been known to the first respondent herein, according to him, he would not have bid in the auction to the higher rent. It is on these grounds, the first respondent herein prayed for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus quashing the order of the third appellant dated 16.7.1984 with direction to permit the first respondent herein to locate his Arrack shop at the premises licensed during the year 1983-84, viz., T.S.No.3082/84 in Thanjavur Municipality or in the alternative to issue a writ of mandamus directing the third appellant to refund to the first respondent herein a sum of Rs.4,64,800 before holding any re-auction for arrack shop No.6 in Thanjavur Municipality. 3. The appellants as respondents in the writ petition resisted the claim made by the first respondent herein as writ petitioner on the following grounds: The first respondent was the highest bidder for arrack shop No.6, Thanjavur Town for a monthly rental of Rs.1,54,100 per month for the excise year 1984-85 and the notified area for arrack shop No.6 was specified as Ward Nos.30, 34 and 35 of Thanjavur Town. The first respondent herein applied for licence on 25.6.1984 to run arrack shop No.6 in Ward No.31, which is outside the notified area and therefore the fourth appellant had directed the first respondent herein in Reference No.920/84 Ex.1 dated 9.7.1984 to select some other unobjectionable site within the notified area. The appeal filed by the first respondent to the third appellant was rejected on 16.7.1984. The first respondent herein as petitioner filed a petition in W.P. No.7648 of 1984 along with a petition for stay in W.M.P. No.12115 of 1984 and also W.M.P. No.15520 of 1984 for direction. The High Court was pleased to direct the appellants to permit the first respondent herein to locate the arrack shop No.6 in Ward No.29 anticipating no objection from anybody in W.M.P. No.15520 of 1984 in W.P. No.7648 of 1984. The first respondent herein was permitted by the appellants to run the arrack shop No.6 in Ward No.29 at Fathima Nagar from 25.3.1985. One Rajavelu, who got impleaded himself as 5th respondent in the abovesaid writ petition, preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench of this Court against the order in W.M.P. No.15520 of 1984 and obtained an order of stay restraining the first respondent herein from locating the arrack shop No.6 in Ward No.29, Thanjavur Town in C.M.P. No.4092 of 1985 in W.A.No.268 of 1985 on 28.3.1985. The appeal in W.A. No.268 of 1985 was allowed on 2.4.1985 and the order passed in W.M.P. No.15520 of 1984 was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the licence issued on 25.3.1985 based on the direction given in W.M.P. No.15520 of 1984 in W.P. No.7648 of 1984 was cancelled and the arrack shop was closed with effect from 6.4.1985. In view of the submission made by the first respondent herein that there was mistaken impression on his part with regard to the areas located in the old wards and the new wards notified for the arrack shop No.6, the Division Bench directed to seek his remedies with the first appellant and accordingly the first respondent herein had submitted a revision petition on 12.10.1985 to the first appellant to enable him to get back the amount deposited by him. The first respondent was informed that a final decision will be taken by the first appellant only after the disposal of W.P. No.7648 of 1984 pending on the file of this Court. The first respondent was informed that a final decision will be taken by the first appellant only after the disposal of W.P. No.7648 of 1984 pending on the file of this Court. The appellants as respondents in the writ petition also submit that the Rural Development and Local Administration Department has notified the division of Wards in certain Municipalities under Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette extraordinary issue dated 29.10.1983 and in that notification the area comprised in Ward Nos.30, 34 and 35 have been notified and revised, the revision of which has been taken into consideration while notifying the area for arrack shop No.6 for the excise year 1984-85. Therefore, the contention of the first respondent herein that he was under the impression that the area to be served might be the same as that of the last year is purely an after thought and is incorrect. In view of the said position, the appellants had to reject the application for issue of licence for locating the arrack shop in an area which is outside the notified area for arrack shop No.6 after taking into consideration of the relevant Act and Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Arrack (Retail Shops) Rules, 1981. The first respondent herein is also not entitled to ask for refund of amount deposited by him towards rent since the Government of Tamil Nadu had incurred heavy loss to a tune of Rs.18,00,000 in view of deliberate failure on the part of the first respondent herein to choose an unobjectionable site to run the arrack shop No.6 as given to him as highest bidder in the auction. It is on these grounds, the appellants as respondents in the writ petition have sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. After considering the submissions made on both sides, the learned single Judge has found that the first respondent herein was under the impression that he had bid for the Arrack shop bearing No.6 for the area which comprised in Ward Nos.30, 34 and 35 during the excise year 1983-84, that the 5th respondent Municipality had stated that there is no change in 36 Wards in the said Municipality, that the first respondent herein could not get licence to carry on business in arrack shop No.6 in Ward Nos. 30, 34 and 35, that the amount deposited by the first respondent is with the Government and that therefore, the first respondent herein as petitioner is entitled for the refund of a sum of Rs.4,64,800. Aggrieved at the said order of the learned single Judge dated 28.10.1995, the respondents 1 to 4 as appellants have come forward with this writ appeal. 5. We heard the arguments advanced on both sides at length and perused the records. 6. The fact remains that the Arrack shop bearing No.6 was run by the first respondent herein as highest bidder on a monthly rental of Rs.1,07,800 for the excise year 1983-84. Admittedly, the area notified by the authority concerned was Ward Nos.30, 34 and 35. The fact also remains that the arrack shop No.6 was auctioned for the excise year 1984-85 by publishing auction notice by the Collector on 25.4.1984. The area notified for arrack shop No.6 was specified as Ward Nos.30. 34 and 35. The first respondent herein was the highest bidder for the abovesaid arrack shop No.6 on a monthly rental of Rs.1,54,100 and the bid in the auction was confirmed by the Collector of Thanjavur District in his proceedings dated 9.6.1984 and the said proceedings was received by the first respondent herein, admittedly, on 19.6.1984. There is also no dispute that a sum of Rs.4,62,300 was deposited by the first respondent herein towards rental for three months for the arrack shop bearing No.6 inclusive for the deposit of Rs.3,85,250 towards 2-1/2 months rent. The application made by the first respondent herein for issue of licence to locate the arrack shop in the premises in which he was running the said arrack shop for the excise year 1983-84 was not agreeable to the appellants since the said arrack shop was not only within 150 metres from the Deaf and Dumb school, but also within Ward No.31 which was not the notified area for arrack shop No.6 in Thanjavur Town for excise year 1984-85. 7. Admittedly, Rural Development and Local Administration Department has notified and division of Wards in certain Municipalities under Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette extraordinary issue dated 29.10.1983 and in that notification the area comprised in Ward Nos.30, 34 and 35 of Thanjavur Municipality have also been notified as revised. 7. Admittedly, Rural Development and Local Administration Department has notified and division of Wards in certain Municipalities under Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette extraordinary issue dated 29.10.1983 and in that notification the area comprised in Ward Nos.30, 34 and 35 of Thanjavur Municipality have also been notified as revised. It is a Government notification and it is a notice to one and all in the State of Tamil Nadu with regard to the revision made in Wards comprised in Ward Nos.30, 34 and 35 of Thanjavur Municipality. The first respondent herein who is a resident of Thanjavur District cannot be heard to say, in view of the abovesaid Gazette Notification, that he was not aware of the change in the division of wards and that he was under the impression that the Ward Nos.30, 34 and 35 remained the same as it was for the excise year 1983-84 even after 29.10.1983. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader it should only be an after thought and not a mutual mistake of the first respondent herein and the appellants as alleged by the first respondent herein. It is relevant to point out that it is a specific case of the appellants that they were aware of the revision of Wards bearing Nos.30, 34 and 35 in the notification issued in Government Gazette on 29.10.1983. In view of the said position we are not in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge that the first respondent herein was under mistaken impression while he had bid for arrack shop No.6 of Thanjavur Municipality that the area notified for the Wards bearing Nos.30. 34 and 35 remained as it was during the excise year 1983-84. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent herein contends that in the counter filed by the second respondent, who is the fifth respondent in the writ petition, has admitted that the proposal for 36 wards were approved by the Government in 1974 and there is no change in 36 wards in the Municipality. The learned senior counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that during the last municipal election in 1986, elections were conducted for the 36 wards only. The learned senior counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that during the last municipal election in 1986, elections were conducted for the 36 wards only. The abovesaid averments in the counter, according to the learned Senior Counsel, would disclose that there is no revision in the area of wards bearing Nos.30. 34 and 35. A careful perusal of the averments in the counter filed by the second respondent herein as 5th respondent in the writ petition would disclose that the fifth respondent has stated about the existence of 36 Wards in Thanjavur Municipality and there is no increase or decrease of Wards in the said Municipality. It is nowhere stated in the pleadings in the counter that there is no ceasure of area or inclusion of area in Ward Nos.30, 34 and 35. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent herein, which was resisted as mentioned above by the learned Special Government Pleader, cannot be sustained. 9. Admittedly, the first respondent herein as petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No.7648 of 1984 against these appellants as respondents and filed a petition in W.M.P. No.15520 of 1984 in W.P. No.7648 of 1984 for direction to the appellants herein as respondents in that writ petition to permit the first respondent herein to locate arrack shop No.6 in Ward No.29 and the said petition was allowed by the High Court. There is no dispute that the appellants herein, as per the direction of this High Court in the abovesaid W.M.P. No.15520 of 1984 in W.P. No.7648 of 1984 permitted the first respondent herein to locate arrack shop No.6 at Fathima Nagar in Ward No.29 as prayed for by him and issued licence with effect from 25.6.1985. The fact remains that one Rajavelu got impleaded as 5th respondent in W.P. No.7648 of 1984 and questioned the correctness of the direction given in W.M.P. No.15520 of 1984 in W.P. No.7648 of 1984 by preferring an appeal in W.A. No.268 of 1985. There is no dispute that the said Rajavelu filed a petition in C.M.P. No.4092 of 1985 in W.A. No.268 of 1985 for stay and the Division Bench of this High Court was pleased to stay the direction given in W.M.P. No.15520 of 1984 referred to above and subsequently allowed the W.A. No.268 of 1985 on 28.3.1985. 10. There is no dispute that the said Rajavelu filed a petition in C.M.P. No.4092 of 1985 in W.A. No.268 of 1985 for stay and the Division Bench of this High Court was pleased to stay the direction given in W.M.P. No.15520 of 1984 referred to above and subsequently allowed the W.A. No.268 of 1985 on 28.3.1985. 10. We have sent for the judgment in W.A. No.268 of 1985 and perused the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon’ble Thiru M.N. Chandurkar, Chief Justice and Hon’ble Thiru T.Sathiadev, J. The first respondent herein was the first respondent in the appeal in W.A. No.268 of 1985 along with the appellants herein as respondents 2 to 5. The first respondent herein had also taken a stand that he had been misled factually, as a result of his ignorance about the re-division of the town into a new wards. Inspite of the abovesaid stand taken by the first respondent herein as first respondent before the said Division Bench, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to hold as follows: “But it appears to us extremely difficult to uphold the order of the learned Judge, because the location of the shop under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Arrack (Retail Shop) Rules, 1981 has to be within the local limits notified by the State Government. Clearly Ward 29 does not fall within the local limits notified by the notification dated 25.4.1984. If at all respondent No.1 has any remedy in respect of what he styles as an incorrect impression that the shop could be located within the old Wards, then the remedy lies with the Government. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the order of the learned Judge. Accordingly, the order of the learned Judge permitting respondent No.1 to locate his shop within Ward No.29 is set aside...... Respondent No.1 is at liberty to approach the Government or any authority as according to him would be able to give him any relief.” It is evident from the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court that the grievance of the first respondent herein was considered in the earlier proceedings referred to above and the claim made by the first respondent herein to locate the arrack shop No.6 outside the notified area was negatived. Direction was also given in the earlier proceeding itself, either to approach the Government or the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance. 11. A learned single Judge of this Court in R.Mahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary, Home, Fort St. George, Chennai and others, 2000 Writ L.R. 30, has held, in location of a shop for sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, outside the notified area for the said shop, as follows: “Auction is conducted by the Government taking into consideration the need of the locality. Area for which the shops are to be open is also determined by the Collector. ‘Area’ has been defined as ‘a locality determined by the Collector within which a retail shop shall be open’. After confirmation of sale, when the auction purchaser applies for getting a licence, he can seek licence only to establish a shop within the area for which he has bid in auction. If the fourth respondent can apply for licence only for the area for which he has participated in auction and if the bidding is not situated within that area, the Authorities cannot, on the ground of sympathy, allow him to do business in some other area i.e., outside the area for which he bid in auction. It is a statutory requirement, and the Authorities under the Act are also bound by the same. Even at the time of submitting his tender, the proposed auction purchaser has to inform the Authorities the area of the liquor shop for which tender was given, and the retail liquor shop number for which he was tendering. When the auction purchaser himself submits his tender for an area and also identifies the liquor shop in which he wants to run his business, the location of the shop will have to be within that area only and not outside..... Fourth respondent is entitled to do business only within the block or the area for which he has bid in auction, and the Authorities are prohibited from issuing licence to the fourth respondent outside that area”. 12. The decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and the learned single Judge of this Court would clearly go to show that the first respondent herein cannot be allowed to run arrack shop No.6 outside the notified area specified in Ward Nos.30, 34 and 35 of Thanjavur Municipality. 12. The decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and the learned single Judge of this Court would clearly go to show that the first respondent herein cannot be allowed to run arrack shop No.6 outside the notified area specified in Ward Nos.30, 34 and 35 of Thanjavur Municipality. The alleged ignorance pleaded with regard to revision of Wards referred to above cannot help the first respondent in any respect either to permit him to locate the shop outside the notified area or for refund of the amount deposited by him towards monthly rental to run the abovesaid arrack shop. As rightly pointed out by the Division Bench in W.A. No.268 of 1985 in which the first respondent is a party, the first respondent is at liberty to approach the Government or any other appropriate Authority who would be able to give him any relief. The fact that the amount deposited by the first respondent herein is with the Government still or the fact that the amount was not forfeited by the Government for any reason is not a ground for refund of the said amount to the first respondent herein. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are unable to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge for refund of the amount and accordingly the order of the learned single Judge has to be set aside. 13. In fine, the writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge dated 28.10.1995 is set aside. No order as to costs.