JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - The Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are respectively Keonjhar Regulated Market Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Market Committee) represented by its Chairman and Secretary of that Committee. This writ application has been filed to quash Annexure-7 which is an order issued by the Under Secretary to the Government in its Urban Development Department to the District Magistrate, Keonjhar, copy of which has also been forwarded to the Petitioners under memo No. 516 dated 10-2-1972, for information and necessary action, and to injunct the opposite party No. 2 from carrying on any business in the agricultural produce in the market run by it. 2. By notification No. 13700/CF dated 19-7-1966, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the State Government declared the areas specified in Schedule B thereto to be the market area of Keonjhar in the district of Keonjhar for the purpose of the said Act in respect of the agricultural produce specified in Schedule A annexed thereto. This notification was issued by the State Government in the Co-operation and Forestry Department. Again by another notification No. MIN, 22/66-23049/CF7-12-1966, the State Government in the said department established a market committee comprising of the members enumerated in that notification. These two notifications are respectively Annexures 2 and 1 appended to the writ application. By another notification No. 66-IN-5/70. 14412/CF dated 27-6-1970 issued in pursuance of Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act, the State Government included the local limits of the Keonjhar Municipality and some other areas within the market area declared previously as per Annexure-2. The market committee, as initially constituted by the State Government, included the Chairman of the Keonjhar, N.A.C. as one of its members and it, by its resolution dated 18-1-1970, selected an area of Ac. 2.50 decimals of land, adjacent to the Municipality weekly market, for the purpose of setting up a market yard, being satisfied as to its suitability after a spot visit. This resolution was confirmed in its next meeting held on 24-3-1970. ?I he Chairman of Keonjhar N.A.C. was a consenting party to both these resolutions. (Annexures 4 and 5). Being moved by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, the State Government, in pursuance of Rule 46 of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958, declared the selected site of Ac. This resolution was confirmed in its next meeting held on 24-3-1970. ?I he Chairman of Keonjhar N.A.C. was a consenting party to both these resolutions. (Annexures 4 and 5). Being moved by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, the State Government, in pursuance of Rule 46 of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958, declared the selected site of Ac. 2.50 decimals as the market yard by notification No. 16168/CF dated 21-7-1970, which is Annexure-a. Subsequent to this notification, the market committee constructed a market yard on the site and fenced it all around with a total expenditure of about Rs. 10,000/-. In the meantime, the tenure of the first market committee having expired election was held for fresh membership of the market committee and the election result was declared by the S.D.O-cum-Election Officer of the Keonjhar regulated market committee on 25-4-1970. Since then the market committee comprises of new members. After reconstitution of the market committee, the aforesaid notification (Annexure-3) expanding the market area by inclusion of the local limits of Keonjhar Municipality was passed. It is alleged that the Chairman of the Keonjhar Municipality having lost his membership in the reconstituted market committee felt aggrieved by inclusion of the area of the Keonjhar Municipality within the market area and establishment of the market yard close to the Municipal weekly market area became instrumental in getting the impugned order, Annexure-7, passed. The operative part of this impugned order runs as follows: In view of the above facts Government have been pleased to order that the operation of R.M.C. in Keonjhargarh Municipality near the Municipal Weekly Market may be stayed till a decision is taken on the report of the said committee. This order was communicated to the Petitioners in memo No. 516 dated 10-2-1972 to the Chairman of the Market Committee for information and necessary action. Thereafter, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies on behalf of the Market Committee moved the Government in the Urban Development Department for its recall, but so far all his efforts have borne no fruit and the functioning of the market committee has practically been stayed for more than one and half years. This gave raise to the cause of action for filing of this writ application. 3. This gave raise to the cause of action for filing of this writ application. 3. The sole contention of the Petitioners is that, the Urban Development of the State Government has no power or competency to issue the impugned stay order against the functioning of the market committee which is a statutory body and as such it has been passed completely without jurisdiction. 4. Both the opposite parties have filed their counters. Their objections essentially are: (a) Market Committee has no legal entity inasmuch as, after issuance of the notification dated 27-6-1970, including the Municipality area within the market area, it has not been constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 6(1)(iii)(a) of the Act. (b) Notification dated 27-6-1970 encompassing the local limits of the Keonjhar Municipality area without the prior approval of the Municipal council is bad in law. (c) The land comprising market yard has not been transferred to the market committee and the market committee, in fencing the market yard without obtaining permission of the Municipality under Rule 530 of the Orissa Municipal Rules has acted contrary to law and, as such, the impugned order Annexure-7 has been rightly passed. (d) The provisions of the Act do not override the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act and as u/s 297 read with Section 3(25) of the Orissa Municipal Act no person can open a new private market or continue to keep open a private market unless he obtains municipal licence to do so and as the market established by the market committee is a private market, the same cannot function in absence of a licence. Since licence having not been obtained, the Minister, Urban Development Department who is the Head of the Municipal organisations in the State is competent to pass the impugned order, Annexure-7. 5. Chapter II of the Act deals with constitution of markets and market committees. u/s 3 of the Act the State Government by notification must first declare its intention of regulating the purchase and sale of agricultural produce in an area specified in such notification. Objection to such establishment of market area will be received and dealt with by the State Government as provided under Sub-section (2) thereof. u/s 3 of the Act the State Government by notification must first declare its intention of regulating the purchase and sale of agricultural produce in an area specified in such notification. Objection to such establishment of market area will be received and dealt with by the State Government as provided under Sub-section (2) thereof. After objection is considered and disallowed or, if no objection is made within the period specified in the notification u/s 3, the State Government shall proceed to declare by another notification the area specified in it to be the market area for the purpose of this Act. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the procedures envisaged under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act have been gone through. The market area was declared by notification No. 13700/CF dated 19-7-1966. That notification is Annexure-2. Section 5 of the Act provides for establishment of market committee. In the instant case, Keonjhar Market Committee was constituted for the aforesaid market area by notification No. MIN, 22/66-23049/CF dated 7-12-1966 issued u/s 5 of the Act. This is Annexure-I. This being the first market committee constituted by the State Government all its members were nominated as required by Section 6(2)(b) of the Act. The S.D.O. Keonjhar was nominated as the Chairman of this market committee. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act the members of the first Market Committee, are to hold office for a term of two years from the date of its first general meeting and every member elected or nominated thereafter shall hold office for a term of three years. According to the proviso to the said Sub-section (3), notwithstanding the expiry of his term of office every member of the market committee shall continue to hold office until the date of the general meeting of the committee next following the date of such expiry. Thus, the first market committee is to continue until the date of the general meeting of the next succeeding market committee. There was fresh election to the market committee held on 25-4-1970. Annexure-10 shows that all were declared elected without contest. This reconstitution of the market committee has been challenged on the ground that there has been noncompliance of Section 6(1)(iii)(a) of the Act. There was fresh election to the market committee held on 25-4-1970. Annexure-10 shows that all were declared elected without contest. This reconstitution of the market committee has been challenged on the ground that there has been noncompliance of Section 6(1)(iii)(a) of the Act. This provision provides that out of 15 members of the market committee, one shall be a person elected by the councillors of a Municipality from among themselves, in case the market area is wholly within the limits of such Municipality. This provision has no application because in the present case the entire Municipality area is within the market area and not vice versa. It appears from Annexure-10 that 4 nominations were filed for the Traders Constituency in pursuance of statutory requirement of Clause (i) to Sub-section (1) of Section 6, 7 nominations were filed for the Agriculturist Constituency as required in Clause (ii) to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 and one for the local authority?s Constituency as required in Clause (iii) to Sub-section (1) of Section 6. Since from the local authority?s constituency only one nomination was filed there was no need for holding any election. In this view I do not see any noncompliance of Section 6 in reconstituting the market committee on 25-4-1970. Thus, the reconstitution in my opinion is valid and legal. Assuming that there is any defect in the reconstitution of the market committee by election held on 25-4-1970, no act done by it can be questioned on the ground merely of the existence of any vacancy in, or any defect in the constitution of the committee as provided in Sub-section (7) of Section 6. Under Sub-section (6) of the section, the Chairman and vice-Chairman of the market committee are to be nominated by the State Government and in the instant case those office bearers have been nominated by the State Government. Thus, at the most, it can be said that the market committee is not fully constituted in that election to one seat in the committee is invalid, and even so, as indicated above, Section 6(7) of the Act validates all acts done by such a market committee. It will be further seen that by the time of the reconstitution of the market committee, the market area had not been expanded so as to include the local limits of the Keonjhar Municipality. It will be further seen that by the time of the reconstitution of the market committee, the market area had not been expanded so as to include the local limits of the Keonjhar Municipality. Consequently, the question of electing a person by the councillors of the Municipality to such reconstituted market committee did not arise u/s 6(1)(iii)(a) of the Act. The market committee having been reconstituted on 25-4-1970 and its life time will expire after 3 years i.e. on 25-4-1973. The constitution of the market committee cannot be affected by any subsequent inclusion of the Keonjhar Municipality within the market area. Under Sub-section (5) of Section 4, the State Government has unbridled power to include any area in a market area at any time. The exercise of this power is only subject to Section 3 of the Act. Thus by exercise of the power u/s 4(5) of the Act, on 27-6-1970, by including the local limits of the Keonjhar Municipality within the market area? (Annexure-3), the legality of the constitution of the preexisting market committee is not impaired. 6. As already stated, there is no limit imposed on the power of the State Government to expand the market area and include fresh areas in it except that before doing so, it must declare its intention by notification u/s 3(1) of the Act and invite objections and after considering the same, if filed, issue the appropriate notification u/s 4 of the Act. This legal procedure has been followed in this case. Neither Section 4(5) of, the Act nor any other provision therein envisages taking of prior approval of the Municipal council in issuing the notification as per Annexure-3. Thus, I do not see any force in these objections as to validity of the constitution of the market committee. 7. The Market Committee as provided u/s 7 of the Act is a body incorporate which is to have perpetual succession and common seal. Thus, I do not see any force in these objections as to validity of the constitution of the market committee. 7. The Market Committee as provided u/s 7 of the Act is a body incorporate which is to have perpetual succession and common seal. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act provides that on and from the date of the notification issued under Sub-section (1) thereof on local authority notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and no other person shall, within the market area or within a distance thereof to be notified in the Gazette in this behalf in each case by the State Government, set up, establish or continue or allow to be set up, established or continued any place for the purpose of sale of any agricultural produce so notified, except under a licence granted by the State Government and except in accordance with the provisions of this Act, rules and bye-laws and the conditions specified in the licence. Section 5 of the Act provides that it shall be the duty of the Market Committee to enforce the provisions of the Act, rules and bye-laws made thereunder and conditions of the licence granted under Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 4. These are clear provisions which over-ride all laws for the time being in force including Orissa Municipal Act and Rules framed thereunder in regard to all matters in respect of which the State Government have notified u/s 4 of the Act namely, matters regarding declaration of market area and market yard and other consequential matters relating to sale of any, agricultural produce so notified for which provision has been made in that Act. Thus it appears to me that the Market Committee would be under no obligation to apply to the Municipality for a licence to open its market in view of the aforesaid provisions of the Act. It is said that the Market Committee should not have enclosed the market yard without prior sanction from the Municipality and the Municipality is entitled to demolish the fence. I need not express any opinion on these matters in this writ application because they have no relevancy to the sole question raised as to whether the opposite party No. 1 has power to stay future functioning of the market committee. I need not express any opinion on these matters in this writ application because they have no relevancy to the sole question raised as to whether the opposite party No. 1 has power to stay future functioning of the market committee. If there is any breach of the Municipal rules or provisions of Municipal Act committed by the Market Committee, there is remedy provided in the Municipal Act which can be resorted to by opposite party No. 2. 8. It is also contended on behalf of the opposite parties that the area constituting the market yard is a Government land and that land has not been transferred legally to the market committee. In absence of such transfer, cause of action for the market committee to institute this proceeding is lacking, I do not think that this contention has any validity. The transfer of title is a formal matter, and besides, the State Government have declared that area to be the market yard and has delivered possession in pursuance of which the market committee has started fencing it. Whether without transfer of such title the market committee can deal with that property is a matter between the market committee and the State and the right to deal with that property with a view to carrying out the purposes of the Act and of the various Government notifications cannot be challenged by third parties like the opposite party No. 2. 9. The impugned Annexure-7 itself indicates that opposite party No. 1 has accepted the validity of the constitution of the market committee and it is only on account of disputes arising between Municipality and the market committee that the opposite party No. 1 has ordered stay of further operation of the market committee. Such an order of stay has been issued by the Urban Development Department. The appropriate department to the Government who is in charge of the functioning of the statutory market Committee is the Co-operation and Forestry Department. One department cannot encroach upon the field of another department. Nothing to the contrary in any rule or law entitling the Urban Development Department to issue the impugned stay order has been shown. In the circumstances, when all other objections have failed as indicated above, it must be held that Annexure-7 has no legal sanction behind it. 10. In the result, therefore, this writ application is allowed and Annexure-7 is quashed. In the circumstances, when all other objections have failed as indicated above, it must be held that Annexure-7 has no legal sanction behind it. 10. In the result, therefore, this writ application is allowed and Annexure-7 is quashed. In the circumstances, there would be no order for costs. G.K. Misra, C.J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed