ORDER
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. S.K. Saraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.
2. By this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 25-1-1995 passed by respondent No. 4, the Sub-divisional Officer, Nawadah, whereby and whereunder he has made the assessment for levy of market fee by virtue of the Notification issued under Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 4 was notified to act as Special Officer by Notification dated 3-5-1995 and even if he was notified under Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the Act he was not competent to do so with retrospective effect and, therefore, the order of assessment made by respondent No. 4 is wholly without jurisdiction.
4. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein these facts have already been admitted. The respondents have brought on record the Notification dated 3-5-1995, marked as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. It is manifestly clear from the Notification as contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit that the Sub-divisional Officer was notified as a Special Officer under Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the Act with effect from 3-5-1995.
5. It is settled law that the Special Officer as notified under Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the Act is competent to exercise powers under Section 27A of the Act when the Market Committee is not in existence. In this connection reference can be made to the case of Ramji Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1991 (1) LJR (HC) 446 : (AIR 1992 Pat 59). Since the respondent No. 4 was notified as Special Officer, as referred to above, vide Notification dated 3-5-1995 and even if he was competent to pass assessment under Section 27A of the Act, he could not have made the assessment on 25-1-1995. In this application the petitioner has challenged the action of respondent No. 4 by which in purported exercise of power under Section 27A of the respondent No. 4 has made the assessment dated 25-1-1995.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, per se, it appears that the order impugned, as contained in Annexures-1 and 2, is wholly without jurisdiction. I, therefore, allow this writ application and quash the assessment orders as contained in Annexures-1 and 2. However, the Market Committee, if it is in existence, or if a Special Officer has been appointed under Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the Act it shall be at liberty to make fresh assessment in accordance with law.