Judgment :- This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to his order dated 22.06.2006 in proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.7738 /A4/A5/ 2005 and quash the same. .2. On 07.09.1991, the petitioner was appointed as a Stamp Vendor by the second respondent for Nallipalayam area and a licence to that effect was also issued. As there was poor response for sale of stamps at Nallipalayam, the petitioner requested the second respondent for a change of place to vend the stamps at Tiruchengode, which request was accepted and an order permitting the petitioner to vend stamps at Tiruchengode was passed by the second respondent on 29.05.1992. Since the place at No.36, South Car Street, Gurukkal Street, Tiruchengode, for which licence was granted to the petitioner, was a rental premises and the landlord required the said premises for his own use, the petitioner shifted the place to Door No.83-C, North Car Street, MUV Building, II Floor, Tiruchengode. 3. While so, on 25.06.2004, the second respondent cancelled the licence granted to the petitioner on the ground of vending stamps at a different place other than the place to which licence was granted. Since the said order of cancellation of licence was passed without affording an opportunity, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19442 of 2004 for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the said order of cancellation of licence dated 25.06.2004 and this Court, by an order dated 12.07.2004, quashed the same, reserving the liberty of the second respondent to proceed afresh against the petitioner, after giving an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the second respondent fixed the date of hearing on 31.08.2004. After an extensive exchange of communications between the petitioner and the second respondent, the enquiry was conducted on several dates. Thereafter, the order dated 22.06.2006, revoking the licence of the petitioner, came to be passed by the second respondent, against which this Writ Petition has been filed. .4. Though the petitioner is stated to have submitted an application to the second respondent on 05.09.2002 requesting for change of place to new premises in Tiruchengode for selling the stamps, a reading of the said application would make it explicit that the said application, seeking permission, was made only after shifting the premises and doing business therein. .4. Though the petitioner is stated to have submitted an application to the second respondent on 05.09.2002 requesting for change of place to new premises in Tiruchengode for selling the stamps, a reading of the said application would make it explicit that the said application, seeking permission, was made only after shifting the premises and doing business therein. In other words, the petitioner had not submitted any application before shifting the premises from No.36, South Car Street, Karukkal Street, Tiruchengode, to No.83-C, North Car Street, MUV Building, II Floor, Tiruchengode, and was carrying on business without obtaining prior permission, contrary to rules. Further, though the petitioner has stated in her application dated 05.09.2002 that she previously applied for permission on 23.01.2002, no such application has been produced before this Court. To the worse, the petitioner had apologised for having shifted the premises and for doing business therein without obtaining prior permission of the second respondent. Had the petitioner really applied for permission previously on 23.01.2002, the said letter would have formed part of the typed set of documents. In the absence of any such document, this Court is unable to accept the version of the petitioner that she already applied for permission on 23.01.2002 and there was no response for the same from the second respondent. 5. Also, as could be seen from the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, the petitioner appeared in person before the second respondent on 30.08.2005 and submitted her statement, admitting the fact that she was vending stamps at a different place other than the licensed premises. On the petitioner admitting the said fact, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent on 110. 2005, calling for explanation within 15 days, as to why her Stamp Vendor Licence should not be cancelled, to which the petitioner submitted her explanation through her counsel on 011. 2005, wherein no details were submitted regarding the vending of stamps at a different place other than the licensed premises. Since the petitioner herself had admitted the fact vide her statement dated 30.08.2005 that she was vending the stamps at a different place other than the licence premises, it was undoubtedly proved that she had violated Rule 25 (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules. 6. Since the petitioner herself had admitted the fact vide her statement dated 30.08.2005 that she was vending the stamps at a different place other than the licence premises, it was undoubtedly proved that she had violated Rule 25 (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules. 6. It was only under those circumstances, the second respondent had rightly passed the order dated 22.06.2006, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, cancelling the Stamp Vendor Licence issued to the petitioner, following Rule 25 (iii) of the Rules. At the time of admission of the Writ Petition also, this Court was not inclined to grant interim stay of the impugned proceedings. 7. Though the petitioner has relied upon the decisions in Hirday Narain v. Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 33; Durlabhkumar v. the District Judge, Indore, AIR 1973 Madhya Pradesh 175 (V 60 C 42), and Firozali Abdulkarim Jivani v. the Union of India, AIR 1992 Bombay, they are totally irrelevant to the case on hand, the reason being, the ratio laid down therein was that the petitions entertained and heard on merits cannot thereafter be rejected on the ground that the statutory remedy was not availed of. 8. Therefore, I do not see any infirmity in the order impugned, passed by the second respondent. As such, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner from applying for Stamp Vendor Licence for the changed premises afresh, in which event the same may be considered by the second respondent in accordance with law.