1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)NO.12870 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 C.Saravanan ... Petitioner Versus The District Manager (In-charge), Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Pudukottai, Pudukottai District. ... Respondent PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from awarding the license in respect of bar attached to TASMAC Shop No.6522, Pudukottai in favour of any participant in the tender who has not produced consent letter/no objection certificate from the owner of the building where TASMAC bar is located and consequently directing the respondent to award license in favour of the petitioner in respect of shop No.6522, Pudukottai pursuant to the tender notification issued by the respondent in his proceedings dated 08.08.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.M.Muniasamy Standing counsel for TASMAC . O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a mandamus to forbear the respondent from awarding the licence to run a bar attached to the TASMAC Shop No.6522, in favour of any person, who had not produced no objection certificate from the land owner. 2. Heard Mr.B.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Muniasamy, learned Standing counsel for respondent. 3. After notice was ordered in the writ petition, the respondent filed a counter, taking a stand that three persons participated in the tender and that all three tenders were rejected. Since the petitioner raised apprehensions, I directed the Standing Counsel to produce the files. Today, the learned Standing Counsel produced the files. 4. The note file discloses that the tender submitted by the petitioner in this writ petition was rejected on account of the alleged defaults committed by him in the previous licence period. The tenders submitted by the other two participants were also rejected on the ground that they could not enclose the consent letter of the owners of the building. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. In other words, the fact that all the three tenders are rejected is borne out by files. It is also borne out from the note file that the respondent has rejected the tenders of two persons on the ground that they could not obtain the consent of the land owners. 6. In view of the above, the cause of action of the petitioner does not survive any more, hence, this writ petition is closed. It will be open to the petitioner to work out his remedy as and when a fresh tender is floated. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The District Manager (In-charge), Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Pudukottai, Pudukottai District +1cc to Mr.B.Saravann, Advocate, SR.NO.41954 vsm GH : 02.12.2011 : 2p/3c W.P.(MD)NO.12870 of 2011 29.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/