S.B.SINHA, J.

1. The petitioners, who are said to be retail traders and carry on business in the town of Gaya, in this writ application, have questioned the legality and/or validity of the directions which are contained in memo No. 226/C, dated 19/01/1992, as contained in Annexure 1 series to the writ application, whereby they have been directed by respondent No. 2 to shift their place of business to the market yard at Chandauti, as also the letter dated 7-2-1992, issued by respondent No. 3, as contained in Annexure 2 series to the writ application, whereby the petitioners have been asked to get the shops allotted in the name of the aforesaid market yard, as also sought for declaration that the provisions of Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act have no application in relation to the retail dealers and Schedule II of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) and/or R. 94 thereof are ultra vires S. 15(1) of the said Act as also Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.

2. According to the petitioners, they hold retail licences under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, and deal with food grains etc. The town of Gaya being a Class B town the retail dealers in terms of the provisions of the said Order are entitled to hold stock of different commodities in the following manner : Foodgrains- 100 quintals. Edible Oilseeds- 150 quintals. Edible Oil- 15 quintals. Sugar- 5 quintals. Khandsari- 5 quintals. The petitioners by reason of the impugned orders have been directed to shift their respective places of business in the newly constructed market yard by the respondent No. 2 and have further been directed by respondent No. 3 to get shops allotted in their favour failing which it has been threatened that legal action would be taken against them and their respective licences would be cancelled.

3. The petitioners have, inter alia, contended that the respondents 2 and 3 are not the authorities and have no role to play in the matter of enforcement of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder and, as such, the impugned orders, as contained in Annexure 1 series and Annexure 2 are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It has further been contended that at present no agricultural produce market committee exists and in that view of the matter too, the direction of the respondents as contained in Annexure 1 series and Annexure 2 series must be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction.

4. In this case a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondent-market committee. In the said counter affidavit it has been asserted that the State of Bihar in exercise of its power conferred upon it under S. 37 of the said Act has appointed Shri K. K. Pathak, Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya, to exercise all the powers and carry out all functions of the Market Committee and its sub-committees by a Notification dated 20/11/1991, as contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit. It has been further asserted that by a Notification dated 31-12-86. Chandauti within Gaya Market Area has been declared to be the principal market yard in respect of food grains, pulses, oil seeds and edible oils. It has been further asserted that the petitioners have been granted licences under the provisions of the said Act and in terms of Cl. II thereof, they are bound to carry out all instructions as may be given by the authorities under the said Act from time to time. It has further been contended that all facilities have been provided in the principal market yard, Gaya, and the petitioners are under a legal obligation to shift their places of business in the newly constructed principal market yard.

5. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has principally raised three contentions in support of this application. The lea