JUDGMENT : 1. Mr.M.Rajasekhar, learned counsel on record, for writ petitioner, Ms.N.Mala, learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) i.e., State Counsel on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3 (official respondents) and Ms.S.Radha Gopalan, learned counsel on record for fourth respondent (private respondent), are before this Court. 2. Entire subject matter pertains to a Liquor license, which is referred to as 'FL-2 License' and instant writ petition pertains to 'FL-2 License' for the year 2019-2020. 3. This Court is informed that writ petitioner and fourth respondent are siblings, both being sons of one late A.Rajamanickam. 4. Post demise of A.Rajamanickam, a partition suit, being OS No.72 of 2006, on the file of learned Principal District Judge's Court at Pudhucherry, came to be filed. In the partition suit, this Court is informed that a preliminary decree came to be passed on 18.4.2016. For the sake of convenience of this Court, it is referred to as 'first preliminary decree'. 5. Thereafter, this Court is informed that there was a regular First Appeal against the first preliminary decree and the matter was remitted to Trial Court and post-remand, a second preliminary decree came to be passed on 3.12.2018. This second preliminary decree is now in vogue is the common say of learned counsel for writ petitioner and fourth respondent. 6. In the aforesaid second preliminary decree, aforesaid 'FL-2 License' pertaining to Liquor Shop in the name and style of 'Balaji Wines', has been shown as one of items viz., item 1 under Schedule 'C'. 7. According to second preliminary decree, writ petitioner and fourth respondent, being siblings, have 6/36 share each in the said business along with two other heirs of late A.Rajamanickam, namely, another son R.Krishnaraj and daughter R.Rajeshwari (Defendants 4 and 5 in preliminary decree). 8. Be that as it may, it is submitted that with regard to earlier issues, writ petitions were filed in this Court and attention of this Court is drawn to WP Nos.5186 of 2017 and 10083 of 2013. 9. An order dated 4.12.2017, came to be passed in the said writ petitions by a Hon'ble Single Judge. A perusal of the said order reveals that Hon'ble Single Judge has referred the matter to 'Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre' under the aegis of this Court ('TNMCC' for brevity). 10. However, what transpired before TNMCC and what was the outcome of mediation proceedings before TNMCC is not clear. A perusal of the said order reveals that Hon'ble Single Judge has referred the matter to 'Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre' under the aegis of this Court ('TNMCC' for brevity). 10. However, what transpired before TNMCC and what was the outcome of mediation proceedings before TNMCC is not clear. Both learned counsel are not in a position to throw light on this aspect of the matter. 11. Be that as it may, State Counsel, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, submits that 'FL-2 License' is now in the name of fourth respondent but is unable to tell this Court as to when and how license was granted in the name of fourth respondent, though admittedly it originally stood in the name of the father of writ petitioner (fourth respondent) namely late A.Rajamanickam. 12. Under aforesaid circumstances, it is necessary that the following directions are given: (a) Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre under aegis of this Court (TNMCC) is requested to send Mediation Report qua the mediation conducted, pursuant to order dated 4.12.2017 made by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in WP Nos.5186 of 2017 and 10083 of 2013. (b) Before next listing, State Counsel shall also keep files of the Department ready for perusal with specific parts of the files flagged, regarding how, when and why 'FL-2 License', which originally stood in the name of late A.Rajamanickam, was given in the name of fourth respondent. 13. List this matter on 27.6.2019. Registry to communicate this order to Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre forthwith.