Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against an order of assessments dated 5/2/1983 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition which was made in terms of the provisions of Sec.27-A of the Bihar Agricultural Produce market Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. By reason of the aforementioned order of the assessment the petitioner have been assessed for a sum of Rs.2,98,674.85 by way of market fee in respect of Ata, Sujji and Maida for the period 1-4-1981 to 30-9-1981. Although, in the writ petition, many points have been raised for the purpose of showing that the petitioners are not liable to pay the market fee on Ata, Sujji and Maida under the provisions of the aforementioned Act, at the time of hearing of this application Mr. G. C. Bharuka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners confined his submission only to the validity of the order of assessment on the ground that the same has been passed by the Special Officer in his capacity as an administrator alongwith the secretary of the Market Committee. 3. In this connection he drew my attention to the provisions of Sec.9 (5) of the Act. By reason of the provisions of the said Act, on the expiry of the term of three years of the Committee if an election is not held within the period of six months thereafter the Committee constituted shall be deemed to be dissolved and its duties and functions shall be performed by such person nominated as such by the State Government. On perusal of the order of assessment itself it would appear that the order of assessment has been signed by the Special Officer who was appointed by the State Government in terms of the aforementioned provisions of Sec.9 (5) of the aforementioned Act alongwith the Secretary of the market Committee. 4. From a perusal of the aformentioned provisions of section 9 (5) of the act it would further be evident that the same clearly indicates that the authority nominated by the State of Bihar will exercise all the powers and perform all such duties of the Market Committee under the said Act and the rules firmed thereunder. The powers of the Market Committee, admittedly are prescribed under section 18 of the aforementioned Act. The powers of the Market Committee, admittedly are prescribed under section 18 of the aforementioned Act. In terms of Sec.19 of the Act, the market committee is empowered to appoint amongst its member a sub-committee and is further empowered to delegate such of its power and duties as it may think fit in favour of such committee. 5. A sub-committee, in terms of Sec.27-A of the Act, is constituted for the purpose of making an assessment with regard to the liablity of a trader relatating to the payment of fee leviable in terms of Sec.27 thereof on the basis of the return furnished by him or otherwise. 6. There is no doubt that in law when a statutory functionary is enjoined with the duties and functions are to be performed by him under a statute, the same is required to be done in the manner laid down in the statute or not at all. The market committee which includes the duties and function of it is also well settled principles of law that statutory authority, statutorily enjoined to discharge its function must act within the four corners of the said statute. 7. By reason of Sec.9 (5) of the Act, the duties and the functions of all such sub committees which may be constituted in terms of the provisions of the Act and as referred to hereinbefore have to be performed by such authority who is appointed as such by the State Government in terms of the provisions of section 9 (5) of the said Act. Such functions of the market committee/or any of the sub-committee, therefore, have to be performed only by the person so appointed by the State Goverment and not by any other persons. Even while discharging such a function a statutory authority is not, in may opinion, entitled to have the advice and to receive recommendetions of any person who does not have such function to perform under the provisions of such statute. 8. Tn the instant case, evidently only the Special Officer who was nominated by the State of Bihar to perform the function of the market committee and other sub-committee which could be constituted by the market committee was to perform all its duties and functions. 8. Tn the instant case, evidently only the Special Officer who was nominated by the State of Bihar to perform the function of the market committee and other sub-committee which could be constituted by the market committee was to perform all its duties and functions. It was, therefore, not within the domain of the Special Officer to take advice or held from any person nor any other person could be associated with him for discharging such functions. 9. It is also a well settled principle of law that if a person who associates himself in deliberations with some persons while discharging some statutory functions, is incapable of doing so in terms of the provisions of statute or otherwise, the decision of the entire body becomes vitiated inasmuch as such person who was not authorised by law to associate himself with the other members of the Committee may influence the mind of such other member while arriving at a decision. 10. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that the entire order of of assessment, as contained in Annexure 4, has become vitiated in law. Mr. G. C. Bharuka, learned counsel for the petitioners has also rightly placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in the case of M/s. Chhabi rani Agro Industrial Enterprises Ltd. V/s. The Agricultural Produce Market committee, Mohania and others, 1984 B. B. C. J.408 and Ramautar Choudhary v. The Managing Director, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna and others, 1984 B.8 C. J.441 Reference in this connection may also be made to an unreported decision in C. W. J. C. No.5215 of 1985 (M/s Deo Lai Singh and others V/s. The State of Bihar and others. 11. In the result this writ petition is allowed ann the order of assessment as contained in Annexue 4 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. 12. Before parting with the case, however, it may be observed that there cannot be any doubt that in view of the express provisions of Sec.9 (5) of the act, the Market Committee must have been reconstituted by now and the assessment sub-committee has also been constituted by the Market Committee in terms of the provisions of Sec.27-A of the Act. 13. 13. However, it goes without saying that as the order of assessment has been struck down by this Court on a mere technical ground the assessment subcommittee shall be entitled to re-open the order of assessment, if the same is permissible in law, subject, however to the condition that the petitioner shall be entitled to raise all other objections in relation thereto to which they may be advised in that regared.