Judgment 1. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, Trichirapalli Region by his proceedings in Na.Ka.C.V.No.6833/2009, dated 20.08.2009 issued a licence to the petitioner for collecting empty bottles and to sell eatables in the bar attached to TASMAC shop No.5053 at Karur. Accordingly, the petitioner commenced the same. On 22.08.2009, it is alleged that the Inspector of Police, Thogaimalai Police Station made a surprise raid in the said TASMAC Bar and found that 28 bottles of illicit liquor was kept for sale. All the contrabands were seized and a case was registered in Cr.No.453 of 2009 under Sections 4(1)(i) and 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The petitioner was added as one of the accused in the said case and he was arrested. 2. Based on the report of the Inspector of Police, in respect of the above criminal case, the District Manager, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.C.V.No.5/6833/2009, dated 24.08.2009, cancelled the licence. Challenging the said order dated 24.08.2009, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(md).No.3127 of 2010. This Court, by order dated 21.02.2011 allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order, however, with liberty to the District Manager to follow the procedure established and then to pass a fresh order. Accordingly, the District Manager gave an opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation and finally, has passed an order, by his proceedings, in Na.Ka.C.V-5/6706/10, dated 14.04.2011, cancelling the said licence and forfeiting the earnest money deposit of Rs.1,73,580/-. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is true that a criminal case was registered and the petitioner was arrested and subsequently, the Inspector of Police filed a negative report to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kulithalai and the Judicial Magistrate, in turn, by order dated 22.10.2010 accepted the final report as action dropped and closed the matter. Thus, the criminal case has come to an end. Since there is no other material upon which the impugned order was passed, in view of the closure of the case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently oppose the writ petition. Thus, the criminal case has come to an end. Since there is no other material upon which the impugned order was passed, in view of the closure of the case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently oppose the writ petition. According to him, the petitioner had violated clause 7 of the agreement, in which it was specifically stated that the petitioner should not commit any illegality and the said clause further empowers the District Manager to cancel the licence to forfeit the EMD amount, in case of violation. Since the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the licence, by selling illicit liquor and since a criminal case was registered, the impugned order came to be passed, after holding proper enquiry and hence, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order does not require any interference at the hands of the Court. 6. Indisputably, Cr.No.453 of 2009 has been closed as action dropped. Except the criminal case, there was no other material to show that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the licence inasmuch as by selling illicit liquor in the bar. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate had become final the same was not challenged before any other Court. Therefore, as of now, there is no material to show that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the licence. There is no other material on record even to infer that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the licence. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the licence period is over, there is no scope to do the business. However, he would submit that a direction may be issued for refund of the security deposit of Rs.1,73,580/-. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.04.2011 is set aside with a direction to the first respondent to refund Rs.1,73,580/-(Rupees one lakh seventy three thousand five hundred and eighty only) representing the forfeited security deposit to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.