Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. It had been stated that the petitioner had participated in the tender, pursuant to the tender notice, dated 5.7.2012, and he was the successful bidder, in respect of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation shop No.8772. However, the licence had not been given to the petitioner, as he had not paid the security deposit, as per the tender conditions, within the time specified therein. Thereafter, based on the request made by the petitioner, the District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, had granted further time for payment of the security deposit, upto 6.8.2012. However, the petitioner had not been in a position to pay the security deposit within the extended period of time. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the first and the second respondents to issue the licence in his favour, to run the bar attached to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation shop No.8772, as per the tender notice, dated 5.7.2012. 3. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents had submitted that the licence had not been issued in favour of the petitioner as he had not paid the security deposit, as per the tender conditions, pursuant to the tender held, on 25.7.2012. The petitioner had failed to pay the security deposit, even after further time had been granted to him to pay the said amount. Thereafter, a fresh tender had been called for, in respect of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation shop No.8772. However, as there was no bid for the said shop, the District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, had decided to shift the shop to a different locality. Steps had also been initiated to relocate the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation shop in a different place, before calling for a fresh bid for the issuance of a licence to run the bar attached to the shop concerned. 4. Steps had also been initiated to relocate the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation shop in a different place, before calling for a fresh bid for the issuance of a licence to run the bar attached to the shop concerned. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the petitioner, who was the highest bidder in the tender auction, held on 25.7.2012, in respect of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation shop No.8772, had failed to pay the security deposit, as per the tender conditions. 5. It is also noted that even after further time had been granted for the payment of the security deposit, the petitioner had failed to do so. In such circumstances, the District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, had decided to relocate the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation shop in a different locality. As such, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 are closed.