IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.143 of 2000 1. M/S MA TARA PLYWOOD A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS ONE OF THE PARTNERS NAKUL KUMAR DAS 2. M./S SANJAY PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR TRILOK CHAND JAIN 3. M/S PINKY PENAL PRODUCTS A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAJENDRA TOSHNIWAL 4. M/S AKAY ALLIED PRODUCTS (P) LTD. A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY THROUGH ITS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS SHYAM SUNDAR AGRAWAL 5. M/S PLY TECO A PROPRIETORSHIP, FIRM THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR GAJANAND MUHKA 6. M/S RADHEY KRISHNA PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS ONE OF THE PARTNERS ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL 7. M/S KRISHNA UDYOG PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS ONE OF THE PARTNERS SHANKAR LAL MAHESHWARI 8. M/S SWASTIK ENTERPRISES A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR UTTAM KUMAR AGRAWAL 9. M/S RAJESHWARI INTERNATIONAL A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SANTOSH AGRAWAL ALL HAVING THEIR FACTORY SITUATED AT KISHANGANJ, P.O. & P.S. KISHANGANJ, DISTRICT- KISHANGANJ (BIHAR) Versus 1. BIHAR STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, PANT BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, PANT BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE KISHANGANJ, DISTRICT- KISHANGANJ (BIHAR) ----------- 5. 21.10.2011 The instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of several petitioners for a declaration that market fee is not payable on ‘plywood’ and ‘Veneer’ under the provisions of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 and thus for quashing the letter dated 29.7.1999 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears and submits that the aforesaid Act itself has been repealed by the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets (Repeal) Act, 2006, during the pendency of the writ petition and as such the cause of action no longer survives. He further relies upon an order dated 8.12.2008 passed by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 8484 of 1999 in the following terms: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner’s Bihar Plywood Manufacturers Association got aggrieved by the erstwhile Agricultural Produce Marketing Board when they made an effort to recover market fee from manufacturer of Plywood and Veneer Plywood. A serious question was raised that these items can never be brought within the ambit of the definition of the Act. The writ application was admitted by the High Court for consideration and stay was granted. During the pendency of the writ application itself, it seems that the government decided to amend the schedule and bring these items specifically under the Act. The enforcement or the action of the respondents remained in abeyance because of the Court’s order and now in the year 2006, the Bihar Agriculture Produce Marketing Board itself stands abolished and the Act repelled. In that view of the matter, the issues raised by the petitioner need not be adjudicated upon. However, if the successor-in- interest of the body in question decides to take any coercive action against the initial notice/demand, it will be open to the petitioner to throw a challenge to the same before an appropriate authority or Court. The writ application is dismissed in the above circumstances with liberty aforesaid.” In the above view of the matter, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as the aforesaid order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8484 of 1999. Fahad. ( Vikash Jain, J. )