HARI LAL AGRAWAL, J.

1. The petitioner is a trader in foodgrains and is a licensee under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 , (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He has challenged the order of assessment of market fee for the years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 passed by one composite order dated 3-7-1982 (Annexure 1),by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnea, appointed as Administrator under the provisions of sub-sec. (5) of Section 9 of the Act, of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Banmankhi, on the dissolution of the Market Committee on account of the expiry of its tenure as provided under the Act, as well as its Secretary. By this order an amount of Rs. 8065.90 was assessed as market fee by way of best judgment assessment on taking the total turnover of the petitioner at Rs. 7,21, 590.00 for all the three years.

2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, the position of the Assessment Sub-Committee has been admitted in paragraph 15 in these words :

" ... ... ... While superseding the Market Committee the Assessment Sub-Committee also was automatically superseded ........."

After making this statement it has been asserted that thereafter all the powers of the Assessment Sub-Committee were vested in the Chairman.

3 I have examined the scheme of the Act. After the decision in Mangalchand Ramchandra V/s. State of Bihar, 1971 0 BLJR 1038, where it was held that the remedy of the Market Committee, in case of dispute between the trader and the Market Committee, lies before the Civil Court for the purpose of assessment, the Legislature had come forward with an amendment to the Act and inserted the new Sec.27-A, in the year 1973, by an Ordinance which was kept alive by subsequent Ordinances till Act No. 60 of 1982, was passed, in order to overcome this difficulty. Section 9 (5) was also similarly added whereby the life of the Market Committee was fixed for a firm period of three years.

4. The order of assessment was challenged by Mr. Bharuka firstly on the ground that during the period of dissolution of the Market Committee the specified person appointed by the State Government to discharge the functions of the Market Committee could not discharge the functions of the Assessment Sub-Committee and make any order of assessment, and on going out of office of the two office bearers, namely, the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Market Committee, the Assessment Sub-Committee was rendered non est, particularly when Section 9 (5) did not specifically authorise the specified person to assume the powers of the Assessment Sub-Committee also. In this connection the main ground of Mr. Bharuka was that the Assessment Sub-Committee was not a Sub-Committee appointed by the Market Committee as such, but it was a statutory committee appointed by the Legislature and, therefore, must be held to be a body independent from the Market Committee. Mr. Bharuka referred to various provisions of Sec.27-A to contend that the various powers of issuing notice, production of accounts of making of best judgment assessments were conferred upon the Sub-Committee. Mr. Bharuka, however, seems to have failed to appreciate that the provision of Sec.27-A in its very nature must refer only to the Assessment Sub-Committee in the matter of performance of the very functions starting from the issue of the notice up to the making of the assessment, just like the reference to the Market Committee in regard to the functions to be performed by the Market Committee. The position is analogous to the provisions contained in the Municipal Act. Whenever the body corporate is superseded or dissolved, then the authority appointed for discharging the functions of the body corporate, by dint of its appointment and the conferment of powers under the notification, becomes competent to assume and discharge all the powers and functions of the main body. The whole purpose of appointing an authority is to carry out the entire scheme