JUDGMENT V. DHANAPALAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Palani Velayutham, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Muniasamy, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, and Mr. M. Alagudevan, learned Special Government Pleader for the third respondent. 2. In respect of the very same subject matter and for the same relief, one Sankarapandian has already moved this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 13379 of 2014 and this Court has dismissed the said writ petition on 11.09.2014 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:- "2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner as a Public Interest Litigation, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from shifting the TASMAC Shop, bearing No. 10917, from No. 45/2, Aranmanai North Street, Veerakeralam Pudur, to No. 80/2, Surandai – Alangulam Main Road, Veerakeralam Pudur, by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 05.08.2014. 3. It has been stated that, Arulmigu Navaneetha Krishna Swamy Thirukovil is situated close to the proposed area at Surandai – Alangulam Main Road, Veerakeralam Pudur. The said temple comes under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board. It has also been stated that based on the protest made by the villagers of Veerakeralam Pudur, the President of the local panchayat had submitted a representation, dated 05.08.2014, to the first respondent, against the proposal to shift the TASMAC Shop, bearing No. 10917, to Surandai – Alangulam Main Road, Veerakeralam Pudur. It has been further stated that the representation made on behalf of the villagers of Veerakeralam Pudur had not been considered by the authority concerned, till date. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent, as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that there is only a proposal to shift the TASMAC Shop, bearing No. 10917, to Surandai – Alangulam Main Road, Veerakeralam Pudur. However, they had submitted that if the location of the TASMAC Shop, bearing No. 10917, at Surandai – Alangulam Main Road, Veerakeralam Pudur, is contrary to Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending [In Shops and Bars], Rules 2003, the proposal to shift the shop would be dropped. However, they had submitted that if the location of the TASMAC Shop, bearing No. 10917, at Surandai – Alangulam Main Road, Veerakeralam Pudur, is contrary to Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending [In Shops and Bars], Rules 2003, the proposal to shift the shop would be dropped. The learned Special Government Pleader had also produced a copy of the communication, dated 21.08.2014, issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Veerakeralampudur, stating that there is no place of worship or educational institution, located within the prohibited distance, from the proposed place, namely, Surandai – Alangulam Main Road, Veerakeralam Pudur. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the relief, as prayed for, by him. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the present Writ Petition, as it is devoid of merits. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed." 3. In view of the above, we find that the petitioner herein is another person who has come before this Court praying for the similar relief, to forbear the respondents from shifting the liquors Shop bearing No. 10917 from the western end of Veerakeralampudhur village, Veerakeralampudhur Taluk to Door No. 80/1, South Car Street, Veerakeralampudhur Village. 4. Therefore, in the light of the above decision of this Court and also taking note of the averments made by the first respondent in paragraph 2 of the counter to that effect that the shop in question has been shifted to the present location on 18.09.2014 and functioning without any objection from the public concerned, we do not find any reason to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition deserves no merit consideration and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs.