(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.