Judgment :- The petitioners applied for licence under the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989 (in brevity "the Rules") for vending Indian Made Foreign Liquor at No.71, Tiruvenkadu and No.25, Maruthur South in Nagapattinam District respectively for the period 2002-03, commencing from 01.08.2002 to 31.07.2003. 2. The draw for the said shops was initially fixed on 23.07.2002. The petitioners applied for the same and paid a sum of Rs.3 lakhs each towards Earnest Money Deposit, which is a condition precedent for participating in the auction. The auction scheduled to be held on 23.07.2002 was postponed to 25.07.2002 and thereafter to 02.09.2002, on which date, the petitioners withdrew their applications as they could not opt for minimum off take as contemplated under Rule 30(2) of the Rules, which reads as follows:- "The licensee should lift the minimum off-take of liquor fixed for the shop by the licensing authority based on the guidelines issued by the Government. In case, the licensee fails to lift the minimum off-take so fixed consecutively for two months, the licensee is liable to pay a penalty which shall be in proportion to the loss of revenue to the Government due to such non-lifting. If the licensee fails to lift such minimum off-take for another two months consecutively, the licence shall be liable to be cancelled and the shop shall be re-notified for grant to privilege". 3. Since the petitioners alone applied for licence for the said shops, as per Rule 13(2) of the Rules, they were deemed to be selected in the auction held on 02.09.2002. Even though the petitioners were thus deemed to be selected in the auction, they failed to start the shops presumably on the ground that they withdrew their applications on 02.09.2002. As a result, the third respondent by proceedings dated 24.12.2002 forfeited the Earnest Money Deposit as well as Privilege Amount paid by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order of the third respondent and to direct the third respondent to refund the amount to the petitioners. 4. Mr. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order of the third respondent and to direct the third respondent to refund the amount to the petitioners. 4. Mr. R.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the right of the respondents to forfeit the security deposit and the privilege amount as provided under Rule 13(5) of the Rules could be exercised only if the respondent passes an order of confirmation of licence granting the privilege to the petitioner to run the said shop. Since the petitioners have already withdrawn their applications for grant of privilege of the said shops, the question of opting minimum off take does not at all arise as the petitioners are yet to be granted a licence for grant of privilege. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that the petitioners could opt shops, only if there is valid privilege in their favour. The core contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Rule 30(ii) of the Rules is not applicable to the petitioners as they have already withdrawn their applications. 5. Per contra, Mr.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader submits that when the applicant is selected for running the shop, he shall select a suitable building within the notified area and if the applicant does not make an application for grant of licence, the privilege amount remitted by him shall be forfeited to the Government. In these cases also, the petitioners have not applied for licence and therefore, their privilege amount and security deposit were forfeited and there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders of the third respondent. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the respondents. 7. In my considered opinion, once the petitioners applied for grant of privilege under the Rules, they are bound by the provisions of the Rules as well as the conditions stipulated thereunder. Since there were no other applications for the impugned shops than that of the petitioners, they are deemed to be selected for running the impugned shops as per Rule 13(2) of the Rules. Therefore, if the petitioners failed to pay the balance licence amount, the respondents are entitled to forfeit the privilege amount and security deposit and also re-notify the shop for auction. Therefore, if the petitioners failed to pay the balance licence amount, the respondents are entitled to forfeit the privilege amount and security deposit and also re-notify the shop for auction. Hence, I do not see any want of jurisdiction in forfeiting the security deposit and privilege amount deposited by the petitioners as a condition precedent to participate in the auction. 8. Finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the third respondent, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.