P.D.Dinakaran, J: The appeal is directed against the order dated 24.12.1998 in W.P.No.12037 of 1991 filed by the respondent herein. The respondent herein filed the above writ petition seeking writ of mandamus to direct the appellants herein to forthwith refund the privilege amount of Rs.98,000 deposited by the respondent herein on 30.10.1990 and the initial amount of deposit of Rs.5,000 with interest at 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the actual payment to the petitioner without reference to notice dated 26.12.1990 issued by the first appellant herein namely the District Collector, Salem. 2. By notice dated 26.12.1990, the first appellant / District Collector, exercising his power conferred under Rule 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Country Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), required the respondent / writ petitioner to show-cause against the proposed confiscation of the privilege amount with respect to arrack shop No.160 located in Ward No.9, Mecheri town panchayat, Mettur taluk, Salem district on the ground that even though licence was confirmed in favour of the respondent / writ petitioner, he had not chosen to locate the shop within the permitted time namely 30.11.1990. According to the first appellant, the building selected by the respondent / writ petitioner to locate the said arrack shop no.160 was at door No.12-4 in Ward No.12 of Mecheri Town Panchayat which is located outside the notified area. That apart, it is the case of the first appellant that even though the respondent / writ petitioner gave an alternative site, the said building was also not in lawful possession of the respondent. For all these reasons, the first appellant Collector proposed to cancel the confirmation of the auction of privilege and proposed to confiscate the privilege amount of Rs.98,000paid by the respondent / writ petitioner along with the initial amount of deposit of Rs.5,000 by issuing notice dated 26.12.1990, to which, the respondent / writ petitioner submitted his explanation on 1.4.1991 and thereafter, hastened to file the above writ petition for the relief stated supra. 3. The learned Judge, by order dated 24.12.1998, while considering the factual aspect of the case, arrived at a finding that the respondent / writ petitioner was not at all at fault and directed the first appellant to refund the privilege amount to the respondent. Aggrieved by this, the Government has preferred this writ appeal. 4. 3. The learned Judge, by order dated 24.12.1998, while considering the factual aspect of the case, arrived at a finding that the respondent / writ petitioner was not at all at fault and directed the first appellant to refund the privilege amount to the respondent. Aggrieved by this, the Government has preferred this writ appeal. 4. Mr.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that as per Rule 36 of the Rules, except as otherwise provided in these rules, any amount due to any person under these rules shall be refunded by the Commissioner or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf. 5. The payment of the Earnest Money Deposit for participation in the auction and after confirmation, the payment of the privilege amount are governed under Rule 12 of the Rules. Rule 12(3) provides that the privilege amount once remitted shall, on no account, be refunded, except in a case referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 13, which empowers the first respondent Collector to cancel the confirmation either suo motu or on review if the Collector is satisfied that the confirmation of the privilege by the Sale Officer is not satisfactory. Therefore, Rule 13(2), in our considered opinion, is not applicable to the facts of the case. 6. Admittedly, the respondent has not chosen to locate his shop within the notified area namely Ward No.9 for which the privilege was granted to him in the auction held with respect to shop no.160, which necessitated the first appellant to issue notice dated 26.12.1990. Once the first appellant / the competent authority has set the process on motion by issuing the statutory show-cause notice, it may not be proper for the respondent / writ petitioner to approach this Court for issue of writ of mandamus for refunding the privilege amount as he is entitled to work out his remdedies only under the Rules. Therefore, grant of the relief by the learned Single Judge awarding refund of the privilege amount with interest, in our opinion is contrary to the statutory provisions referred to above. Hence, the order of the learned Judge is therefore set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. However, we direct the first appellant to consider the representation of the petitioner, and pass final orders expeditiously, in any event within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.