The authority vested with the power to decide a matter should do so without seeking direction from any other authority. Non-mention of a relevant fact in a writ application does not necessarily amount to suppression of fact.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14th July, 2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. 4060 of 2000, by which he has dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant for a direction to the respondents to grant him licence to hold Vijay Virat Pashu Mela for the period 2000-2001 under Rule 129 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1975.

2. The factual matrix for the disposal of the present appeal are as follows. The State Government enacted Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment of Markets for agricultural produce in the State of Bihar and the matters connected therewith. The State Agricultural Produce Markets Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) in exercise of power conferred by section 52 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act empowers the State Government to declare its intention, by notification, of regulating the purchase, sale, storage and processing of such agricultural produce and in such area, as may be specified in the notification. After issuance of the aforesaid notification, market area has to be declared under section 4 of the Act and once the market area is declared sale, storage, processing etc. of agricultural produce within the market area or within the distance notified in the official gazette has to take place in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws. Under the provisions of the said Act, Mohania Market Committee has been constituted and village Kalyanpur within Durgawati Police Station falls within the aforesaid market Committee.

3. The appellant owns plot nos. 323 and 324 under Khata no. 173 in the aforesaid village as a raiyati land. In 1996 the appellant has applied for a licence under Rule 129 of the Rules for setting up Hat/Bazar/Mela (Vijay Virat Pashu Mela) on the aforesaid raiyati land for the period ending 31st March. Licence was granted to the appellant to hold Mela and accordingly the appellant held Mela during the aforesaid period.

On 21.5.1999, the Secretary of Mohania Market Committee issued notice to the appellant to show cause as to why his licence to hold Mela be not cancelled on account of violation of terms and conditions of the licence. The appellant filed his show cause on 24.5.1999 and after consideration of the same, the Secretary, Mohania Market Committee suspended his licence for one month. While the licence was under suspension the Managing Director of the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, a Body constituted under the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Board) received a report that the appellant during the period of suspension of his licence was also holding Mela over the raiyati land and he asked the District Magistrate, Kaimur to hold enquiry. The District Magistrate entrusted the enquiry to the Executive Magistrate, who conducted the enquiry and submitted adverse report against the appellant on 11.7.1999. After receipt of the aforesaid report, fresh notice was issued to the appellant by the Market Committee through the Secretary on 29.7.1999 to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled. Reference with regard to the report submitted by the Executive Magistrate was also made in the said show cause. The appellant showed cause and thereafter the licence of the appellants was cancelled.

4. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Managing Director of the Board, who dismissed the appeal by order dated 16.11.1999. The appellant thereafter filed C.W.J.C. No. 11448 of 1999 before this Court which was dismissed on 6.12.1999. Thereafter the appellant challenged the judgment of the learned signle Judge by filing L.P.A. No. 43 of 2000. The aforesaid L.P.A. was allowed on 1.2.2000 and the order of cancellation of the licence of the appellant as well as the appellate order upholding the order of cancellation was set aside and the matter was remitted