Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to restore Shop No.8738, from Vanagaram to its original place at Gummidipoondi Highways Road. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had participated in the tender conducted by the fourth respondent, on 19.8.2011, by paying the earnest money deposit of Rs.5,520/-. The petitioner had paid the security deposit of Rs.77,500/-, as he was the highest bidder in the said tender conducted by the fourth respondent, for supplying eatables and for collecting empty bottles, in the bar attached to the Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Shop No.8738. While so, the fifth respondent had passed an order shifting Shop No.8738, from Gummidipoondi Highways Road to Vanagaram, which is about 90 kms away, without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated that the said order had been issued by the fifth respondent with the mala fide intention of favouring certain parties. 3. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner has no right to challenge the order passed by the fifth respondent to shift the Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Shop No.8738, from Gummidipoondi Highways Road to Vanagaram, as he had not been issued a licence, pursuant the tender conducted on 19.8.2011. The reason for shifting the shop from Gummidipoondi Highways Road to Vanagaram is that there was no facility for running a bar attached to the Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Shop No.8738. Further, the income from the said shop was very low as compared to the other shops in Tiruvallur District. They had also submitted that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the fifth respondent in passing the order shifting the shop from Gummidipoondi to Vanagaram, as alleged by the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 had submitted that the security deposit of Rs.77,500/- made by the petitioner would be returned to him, within three weeks from today. 4. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for by him in the present writ petition. 5. 4. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for by him in the present writ petition. 5. It is an admitted fact that no licence had been issued in favour of the petitioner, pursuant to the tender conducted by the fourth respondent, on 19.8.2011. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to challenge the order passed by the fifth respondent, if any, shifting the Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Shop No.8738, from Gummidipoondi Highways Road to Vanagaram. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to substantiate his claim that the shifting of the shop concerned had been done for mala fide reasons. As such the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. However, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the fourth respondent to refund the amount of Rs.77,500/-to the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.