Judgment R.S.Dhavan, J. 1. This petition was filed by the Bihar State Stamp Vendors Association and another, petitioner No. 2 one Parmanand Lal Karn, claiming to be the Secretary of the Association. The reliefs sought were to cancel the appointment of the private respondents who had been appointed as licensed vendors and restraining the State respondents from making any appointment without following the directions of the High Court. 2. The contention raised in the petition is that the licences had been granted in violation of the Courts direction dated 30 April 1993 in CWJC No. 6171 of 1992. 3. Truly the petition has become infructuous. In the writ petition except making a passing reference to a Rule 3, the entire text is sans any reference to the law or the rules, Thus, the petitioners are not even aware under which provision licences are granted. 4. Faint reference was made that the licence was granted under the Bihar Stamp Rules, 1954. This is not so. 5. Since the petitioners have not made any reference to any enactment of rules in the writ petition there appears to be a misunderstanding on the scope of licence which is granted to vendors to sell stamps and stamped papers. 6. There is a circular dated 26 April 1949 bearing No. 7291-F not referred to by the petitioners in the writ petition which gives details of the manner in which the licences are to be granted by the Collector under Clause 3. The circular specifies what the licence will specify, a control on the vendors, functions of licensed vendors, recall of stamp by the Collector, guidelines for the licensed vendor to obtain supply form treasury only on payment, discount to be given to the licensed vendors, exchange of exchange of stamps when unsold, the manner in which the accounts will be kept, inspection, restrictions on overcharging. These provisions have not been referred to by the petitioners and, thus, the misunderstanding that any licence which has been granted is without any guidelines. 7. Further, the licence which is granted to the vendors is an annual affair. Of any irregularity which the petitioners alleged (and they are not even aware of the provisions under which the licence is granted) may at best be attributed to the writ petitioner when the writ petition was filed. 8. 7. Further, the licence which is granted to the vendors is an annual affair. Of any irregularity which the petitioners alleged (and they are not even aware of the provisions under which the licence is granted) may at best be attributed to the writ petitioner when the writ petition was filed. 8. If there be any fresh complain that the licences had been granted by the Collector in violation of the rules regarding supply and sale of stamp and stamped papers (circular No. 7291-F dated 26-4-1949), then that may be an occasion for the petitioners to make a grievance that the guidelines provided have been violated. The petition does not contain any such details and the period of licence and the year when the petitioners were complaining is over. Truly the writ petition itself became infructuous after the period was over. Likewise, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.