Saikia. C. J. — The Anchalik Go-bazar Committee, Kakaya and the office bearers and members of the Committee impugn the order contained in letter No. PDA. 204/73/267 dated 19.5 79 closing down the Anchalik Go-bazar under Rule 27 of the Assam Panchayati Raj (Administrative) Rules, 1973 with immediate effect and allotting the market hither­to alloted to Anchalik Go-bazar in letter dated 11.8.77 to tae Sri Gopal Go-bazar, if they so wanted to revert. The facts are simple. As far back as in 1963, that is prior to the coming into force of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972, Sri Chaitanyathan Go-bazar was constituted in village Kakaya. After about 10 years, on 14.3.75, the Government considered constitution of the said Chaita nyathan Go-bazar as illegal and directed the Chief Executive Coun­cillor, Nalbari Mahkuma Parishad to establish a new bazar under Rule 27 of the Assam Panchayati Raj (Administrative) Rules, here inafter referred to as "the Rules". The Executive Committee of the Nalbari Mahkuma Parishad accordingly by a resolution es­tablished a new bazar at the same place where the erstwhile Chaitanyathan Go-bazar used to sit and called it the Anchalik Go-bazar on 24.9.75. 2. It appears that another Go-bazar known as Sri Gopal Go-bazar used to be held at village Pipilibari. Mr. B. B. Narzary, the learned counsel for the Sri Gopal Go-bazar states that this bazar had been established prior to the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", coming into force and as such, no permission under the Act from the Deputy Com­missioner was to be taken, but the Khetri Dharmapur Qaon Panchayat permitted it to be held. Admittedly the aforesaid two Go-bazars are situated within less than 5 K. Ms. of each other. It appears that the General Secretary of Sri Gopal Go-bazar as well as the Assistant Secretary of the Anchalik Go-bazar applied to the Government and by order dated 13.5.77 the Govt. of Assam accorded permission to both the bazars under Rule 27 of the Rules subject to the condition that the two bazars would operate on different dates of the weelc (Annexure 3' to the petition). Both the bazars thereafter continued to function. By order dated 9.8.77 considering all aspects of the matter the Govt. was pleased to direct Sri Gopal Bazar to sit on Sundays and Fridays and the Anchalik Bazar to sit on Mondays and Saturdays. Both the bazars thereafter continued to function. By order dated 9.8.77 considering all aspects of the matter the Govt. was pleased to direct Sri Gopal Bazar to sit on Sundays and Fridays and the Anchalik Bazar to sit on Mondays and Saturdays. This order was modified by the Govt. order dated 11.8.77 which directed Sri Gopal Bazar to sit on Sundays and Frfdays and the Anchalik bazar to sit on Mondays and Thursdays. Admittedly this state of affairs continued until the impugned order dated 19.5.79 was passed closing down the Anchalik Go-bazar and reallotting the market allotted to it to Sri Gopal Go-bazar. Hence this petition. 3. It is admitted by the parties that by virtue of our interim order dated 12.6.79 both the bazars are continuing on the above days prescribed by the Govt. order. Admittedly both the bazars fall within the jurisdiction of the Nalbari Mahkuma Parishad which itself did not raise any objection to the continuation of both the bazars within its jurisdiction. 4. In the impugned order dated 19.5.79 reference is made about the sub-Divisional officer, Nalbari having issued prohibitory orders to stop functioning of the Go-bazar at Kakaya, that is, Anchalik Go-bazar as the same was reported to have been within 5 K.Ms, of an existing bazar, meaning Sri Gopal Go-bazar. The order also discussed that the Chief Executive Councillor of the Mahkuma Parishad gave an estimate that a newly constituted bazar would fetch a revenue of Rs. 40.000/- at a cost of hardly Rs. 5000/-and hence the Govt. constituted that bazar by order dated 13.5.77 to augment the Mahkuma Parishad's revenue. But the Mahkuma Parishad thereafter took no action to sell the bazar and instead allowed some interested persons to get the illegal benefits for themselves and the whole scheme had been misused where for the Anchalik Go-bazar was closed. From the order it does not appear that the Anchalik Go-bazar Committee, who are the petitioners before us, were given any opportunity to state their case before closing down the bazar. Acting in conformity with the principles of natural justice which add to administrative efficiency, had the Anchalik Go-bazar Committee been given an opportunity before closing down the bazar the disappointment and litigation could have perhaps been avoided. Acting in conformity with the principles of natural justice which add to administrative efficiency, had the Anchalik Go-bazar Committee been given an opportunity before closing down the bazar the disappointment and litigation could have perhaps been avoided. We are, accordingly, of the view that the Anchalik Go-bazar committee deserves an opportunity of being heard in the matter of closing down the Anchalik Go-bazar, We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the Government to give the Anchalik Go-bazar Committee a hearing before deciding i whether to close down the bazar and to decide the matter in accor­dance with the Rules.) The Committee of Sri Gopal Go-bazar should also be heard before taking such a decision. 5. It may be observed that the location of such bazars has an economic element besides the statutory element. The question as" to the rule of 5 K. Ms. may have to be considered along with the .economic factors involved in such bazars. Admittedly both the bazars have been running since 1975 and the Government by suc­cessive orders not only granted permission to both the bazars but also allotted different dates of the week to the bazars and the dates, it appears, have been stabilised by this time. Under the above circumstances the doctrine of factum valet may as well apply. Be that as it may, let both the bazars be allowed to function as they are presently functioning until the Government takes a decision in accordance with law after giving hearing to both the parties concerned. 6. In the result, with the above observations and direction, this petition is disposed of. We make no order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice. Sd/- Judge.