M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to respondents and after hearing the counsel for parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a firm carrying on business of running a provision store at jayanagar in Bangalore City. It is aggrieved by the demand of the 2nd respondent Agricultural Produce Market Committee, bangalore, by which the petitioner is required to register itself as a trader under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). It is contended tor the petitioner that it is only a retail trader which sells provisions most of which are agricultural produce to domestic consumers and not to any other trader and therefore it cannot be treated as a trader under the Act. In that view of the matter, it is further contended that there is no need to take out licence as a trader. It also contends that S. 8 (1) and (2) of the Act as amended, is ultra vires the fundamental rights which are guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) of the Constitution. In that circumstance, it has prayed that this Court may strike down S. 8 (2) of the act and issue direction to the Market committee to refrain from insisting upon the petitioner taking out the trader's licence. ( 3 ) SIMILAR question was raised in a batch of petitions earlier. A Division bench of this Court in the case of D. V. Kempaiah v. Chief Marketing Officer (1), repelled that challenge made on identical grounds and held that S. 8 of the Act as amended was within the Legislative competence of the State and the amendment made in 1979 to that section to bring within the ambit of S. 8 of the Act, even retail traders, was permissible and could not be construed as a restraint on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19 of the Constitution. In that view of the matter, the challenge in this petition is concluded by the aforementioned decision of the Division Bench which is binding on me. Once the constitutional validity of a particular provision in a statute is upheld, then it must be presumed that all aspects in regard to its constitutional validity were considered and upheld. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be rejected and it is so rejected. Once the constitutional validity of a particular provision in a statute is upheld, then it must be presumed that all aspects in regard to its constitutional validity were considered and upheld. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be rejected and it is so rejected. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .