Judgment K.B.N. Singh, C.J. These two applications, raising common question of law, have been heard together and are being disposed of together. 2. In both the writ applications the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notice issued by the Chairman, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Mohania (Respondent No.2) directing them to obtain licences from the Market Committee by paying licence fee of Rs.50/- each without which they could not hold cattle fair in village Noan, falling within the Ramgarh Mohania Market Area. Copies of the notices issued have been filed as Annexure ‘1’ to “1/35” with first writ application and as Annexures "1" to "6" in the second writ application. 3. The petitioners are agriculturists having agricultural lands at one place, near one another in village Noan, which have been included in the Market Area of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Mohania since the 9th September 1974 under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The common case of the petitioners in both the writ applications is that since last 200 years after harvesting of crops, the petitioners and other agriculturists of the area assemble over the petitioner's land for sale and purchase of different types of cattle in a fair held for the purpose. In the said fair major portion of the cattle are brought by the local cultivators and agriculturists and invariably such cattle are sold by retail to agriculturists of the area for their own use. The petitioners were served with notices dated the 26th April 1975 issued by the Chairman of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Mohania District Rohtas (Respondent No.2) directing them to obtain licence from the Market Committee by paying licence fees of Rs.50/- each, as without obtaining such lice nee they could not hold any cattle fair (Annexures 1 to 1/35 in the first case and Annexures 1 to 6 in the second). The petitioners case is that the provisions of the Act, and the Rules framed there under seek to regulate the buying and selling of agricultural produce But in the definition of the term agriculture produce in section 2(1) (a) of the Act, 'animal husbandry' as such has not been included and what bas been included is the 'produce' of 'animal husbandry' processed or unprocessed and therefore, the holding of a cattle fair by the petitioners, on the facts and circumstances as stated in the writ applications, does not come under the mischief of the Act. Under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule) the requirement of licence is meant only for "Broker", "Weighman" "Measurer" "Surveyor" and "Warehousemen" and the petitioners do not fall within any of such categories and hence the notices issued to the petitioners are wholly illegal and unauthorised. The restriction sought to be put by the Market Committee infringes the petitioners right to hold a cattle fair on their own land and property, which they have been holding since last 200 years and offends Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners case further is that their case comes under explanation of section 4 (2) of the Act, and they are entitled to hold cattle fair as the cattle sold in the said fair are always sold on retail by the agriculturists to the agriculturists for their own use for agricultural purposes. 4. A counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in both the cases, asserting that the petitioners also carry on trade as 'brokers' and “operators” in the market area. It is also denied that only local cultivators and agriculturists assemble in the cattle fair and it is asserted that big traders of different localities and other traders (pharias) also assemble and participate in such fairs and the petitioners do not charge any ground rent from the traders rather they only take remuneration on the completed sales. It is also asserted that the cattle comes within the purview of the Act, and the rules made there under and it is a notified agricultural produce and notices directing them to take licence have been validly issued. 5. It is also asserted that the cattle comes within the purview of the Act, and the rules made there under and it is a notified agricultural produce and notices directing them to take licence have been validly issued. 5. It is not necessary to refer in detail the provisions of the Act, or the Rules, in view of the fact that the Act, has been held to be intravires and challenge to its validity under Articles 19, 31 and other provisions of the Constitution has been repelled by this court in several decisions, and it will be sufficient to mention the latest decision in the case of Messrs B. and K. Trader and others Vs. The State of Bihar. The Act, intends to provide better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce in the State of Bihar and for matters connected therewith as the Preamble shows. 6. There is no dispute that village Noan lies within the Ramgarh Mohania Market Area which has been declared as such under section 4 of the Act, in respect of the agricultural produce specified in the Notification made under section 4. Subsection (2) of this section lays down the consequences of the issue of such a notification and states that after the date of the publication of the notification under subsection (1) "no Municipality or other local authority or other person notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, shall, within the market area or within a distance thereof to be notified in the official gazettee in this behalf, set up, established or continued or allowed to be set up, established or continued, any place for the purchase, sale, storage or processing of any agricultural produce so notified except in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and bye-laws." There is an explanation appended to this subsection on which reliance has been placed on behalf of he petitioners which is in the nature of an exception to the general rule, providing exemption in case of sale of limited quantity of agricultural produce that may be prescribed by rules, where the seller is the producer of the agricultural produce offered for sale and the buyer is a person who purchases it in retail sale for his own use. Sub-section (3) gives power to the State Government to exclude or include from or in a market area any area or any agricultural produce by a notification. Sub-section (4) provides for exemption in respect of petty traders whose daily or annual turnover does not exceed the prescribed amount under the Rules. Section 5 provides for declaration of Market Yards, Principal Market Yard, Market Yard and Sub-Market Yards, by the State Government. Sections 6 to 9 provide for the establishment of Market Committee for the Market Areas. Section 10 to l4 deal with Membership and office-bearers of the Committee and are not relevant for our purpose. Section 15 lays down that no agricultural produce, specified in the notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 shall be bought or sold by any person at any place within the market area, other than the principal Market Yard or Submarket yard, or yards established therein except such quantity as may in this behalf be prescribed for retail sale or personal consumption. Section 16 prohibits trade allowance except as prescribed. Section 17 lays down every Market Committee shall be a body corporate. Section 18 deals with the powers and duties of the Market Committee, and, one of its function is, where a market is established, "to issue licences in accordance with the rules to traders, brokers, weighmen measurers, surveyors, warehousemen and other persons including persons or firms engaged in the processing, storing or pressing of agricultural produce concerned operating in the Market Area". Former Rule 71 and the present Rule 98 of the Rules requires that no person shall carryon business as a trader in agricultural produce in the market area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence in Form XXIII issued in this behalf by the Market Committee. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners bas submitted that the Act, is intended to apply to "agricultural produce" as defined under section 2(1)(a) of the Act, and as mentioned in the schedule to this Act, and 'cattle' being a non-schedule article, it is outside the scope of the Act. There is no substance in the submissions. Item No. VIII of the Schedule is captioned "Animal Husbandry Products", in which there are a number of sub-items, 'cattle' being sub-item, no. There is no substance in the submissions. Item No. VIII of the Schedule is captioned "Animal Husbandry Products", in which there are a number of sub-items, 'cattle' being sub-item, no. (3) in this item and it has been made a sub-item, distinct from other articles of animal husbandry products like "wool" "butter", "ghee" "sheep" etc. enumerated under various other sub-items Cattle is therefore without doubt a scheduled article and the inclusive definition of "agricultural produce" is wide enough to justify its inclusion in the Schedule. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that the petitioners case come under explanation to subsection (2) of section 4 of the Act, and, therefore, the notices asking the petitioners to take out licences are wholly illegal. The relevant explanation reads as follows :- "Explanation :- A Municipality or other local authority or any other person shall not be deemed to set up, establish or continue or allow to be set up, established or continued a place as a place for the purchase, sale, storage or processing of agricultural produce within the meaning of this section, if the quantity is as may be prescribed and the seller is himself the producer of the agricultural produce offered for sale at such place or any person employed by such producer to transport the same and the buyer is a person who purchases such produce for his own use or if the agricultural produce is sold by retail sale to a person who purchases such produce for his own use". Rule 94(1) of the Rules, relied upon in this regard, may also be quoted :- "(1) All agricultural produce brought into or processed in the market area, except quantity for retail sale or consumption as per schedule. It of the Rules or such description of agricultural produce exempted under section 15 by the Board shall pass through the principal market yard or submarket yard or yards, and shall not be bought or sold at any other place within the market area." Schedule II mentions a number of agricultural produce in respect of which there is exemption within a specified limit as to quantity and price. Category 8 of schedule II deals with Animals and Animal Husbandry Products", relevant for our consideration, under the description is "cattle" under Item No. (iii) which reads as follows :- "One head of cattle or Rs.500/- which ever is less". Category 8 of schedule II deals with Animals and Animal Husbandry Products", relevant for our consideration, under the description is "cattle" under Item No. (iii) which reads as follows :- "One head of cattle or Rs.500/- which ever is less". that is to say, one head of cattle or cattle worth rupees five hundred, whichever, is less for retail sale or consumption, need not be brought to the principal market and or sub-market yard or yards. It is the petitioner's contention that as the sale of the cattle is always by retail sale to the cultivators and the agriculturists of the area, who assemble there for sale find purchase at retail price, they are not obliged to take any licence, and they come under the exemption provided in the explanation to sub-section 4(2) quoted above. The assertion of the petitioners made in paragraph 3 of the writ application in this behalf, has been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and it is stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit that big traders of different localities and the local traders (Pharias) assemble and participate in the cattle fair. The petitioners do not charge any ground rent from the traders rather they only take remuneration on completion of the sale from the purchasers. It is also that the petitioners also negotiate and bring about contracts for the purchase of cattle and in consideration of the same get remunerations on every transaction of purchase and thus they are engaged in trade within the market area. In reply to the counter affidavit it is denied that big traders of different localities assemble and participate in such fair and therefore there is no question of taking any remuneration. There is, however, no specific denial of the fact that the petitioners do not charge any remuneration on completion of the sales from the purchasers, nor there is any denial of the sale being in bulk or whole-sale. There is no assertion in the writ applications that the transaction of sales entered into by the petitioners is confined to only one cattle or cattle worth Rs.500/-, as mentioned in schedule II. The State has also asserted that not only retail but bulk transactions are also entered into in the fair. There is no assertion in the writ applications that the transaction of sales entered into by the petitioners is confined to only one cattle or cattle worth Rs.500/-, as mentioned in schedule II. The State has also asserted that not only retail but bulk transactions are also entered into in the fair. In this view of the matter, it is difficult for a writ Bench to hold that the petitioners are not obliged to take out any licence or that the notices asking the petitioners to take out licences are illegal. The petitioners, if so advised, may agitate these questions before the proper authorities under the Act, which, we are sure, will go into the questions raised, uninfluenced by the fact that the petitioners' writ application have been dismissed by this court. With this observation the writ applications are dismissed, but without costs. Application dismissed.