Judgment The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider his application dated 10.06.2013 for grant of license for vending stamps within a stipulated time. 2. The petitioner is said to have applied for Stamp Vendor's licence before the fourth respondent, who in turn forwarded the same to the third respondent by proceedings dated 17.06.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner was not informed about the fate of the application and the information sought for under the Right to Information Act was not properly furnished. Subsequently, the petitioner sought for information on 03.07.2013 for which, it was informed that two persons have been selected and appointed as Stamp Vendors in Andipatti Region. This according to the petitioner is illegal and without following the rules, they have been appointed. 3. However, the relief sought for in the writ petition is entirely different and there is no challenge to the licences granted in favour of those persons. As informed to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, two persons namely (i)M.Palpandian S/o.Marimuthu (ii)J.Parimala Devi, W/o.Late S.Jeyaraman were granted licence for vending stamps. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by selection of those persons, the petitioner has to challenge the selection and without doing so, he cannot seek for a direction for issuance of a direction for grant of license for vending stamps. Thus, the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. 4. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this order would not stand in the way of the petitioner from working out his remedies in the manner known to law, if he is aggrieved by granting of licence to those person as Stamp Vendor in that area. No costs.