JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Petitioners in the aforesaid five writ petitions carry on business of milling of rice and for that purpose they purchase paddy from different places. Being aggrieved by the levy of market fee and licence fee by the different Regulated Market Committees, they have filed the writ petitions challenging the several provisions of the relevant Act, the Rules and the Bye-laws. . In O.J.C. No. 1654 of 1979, opposite party No. 1 is the Bargarh Regulated Market Committee, in O.J.C. No. 1655 of 1979 opposite party No. 1 in Padmapur Regulated Market Committee, in O. J. Cs. Nos. 1656 and 1727 of 1979, opposite party No. 1 is Attabira Regulated Market Committee and in O.J.C. No. 1657 of 1979, opposite party No. 1 is Dunguripalli Regulated Market Committee. 2. The Orissa Legislature enacted the Orissa Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1956 (Orissa Act 3 of 1957) basically to provide for better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce. In exercise of the powers conferred u/s 27 of the said Act, the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958, were framed and u/s 28 (1) of the Act, the Market' Committee framed a set of Bye-laws provide the procedure as well as the rate of levy in respect of different agricultural produces. The Petitioners in each of these writ petitions challenge the validity of certain provisions of the Rules, the Act and the Bye-law 13 of the Bye-laws. 3. Mr. Panda appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Mohanty appearing for opposite party No. 1 in each of the cases submit that the Bye-law of the different Regulated Market Committee are identically worded. The constitutionality of the Act as well as the Rules considered by this Court in the case of Jatadhari Mishra v. Regulated Market Committee and Anr. 1973 (2) C. W. R. 1864, and though this Court upheld the validity of the Act, yet declared Rules 48, 60, 61 and 62 of the Rules to be ultra vires. After the judgment of the aforesaid case, the Rules have been suitably amended in 1964. A distinction has now been brought out between "Market area" and "market yard." 4. At the hearing of these applications, Mr. After the judgment of the aforesaid case, the Rules have been suitably amended in 1964. A distinction has now been brought out between "Market area" and "market yard." 4. At the hearing of these applications, Mr. Panda does nor challenge any provisions of the Act and rightly so in view of the earlier decision of this Court, referred to supra, as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad and Another Vs. The State of Bombay and Another, and Lakhan Lal and Others etc. Vs. The State of Bihar and Others etc., ., Mr. Panda also does not press his arguments with respect to the validity of the amended Rules 60 and 62 since a Bench of this Court considered the amended Rules in a batch of writ petitions in M/s, Mamchand Mulchand etc. v. Bargarh Regulated Market Committee and Anr. O.J.C. No. 1739 of 1975 disposed of on 25th. October, 1979 and upheld the validity of the said Rules. The only contention of Mr. Panda for the Petitioners is in respect of the Bye-laws. Bye-law 13, as it was, prior to amendment has been quoted in paragraph 9 of the writ application. The said Bye-law, however, has been amended with effect from 25-3-1977 and there has been no amendment to the writ petition challenging the validity of the amended Bye-law. In view of the fact that the Bye-law, the validity of which was challenged, has been am ended and there has been no consequential amendment in the writ petition, the original grievance of the Petitioner does not survive for consideration. 5. However, on our request Mr. Panda for the Petitioners produces an attested copy of Bye-law 13 and states in a Memo that Bye-law 13 of the Regulated Market Committees has been identically worded. We have perused the said Bye-law 13 and we do not find any infirmity in the said Bye-law. Bye-law 13 (1) (a) authorises levy of one per cent advalorem on the sale of agricultural produce other than cattle, sheep and goat and poultry from the seller as entrance fees. Bye-law 13 (1) (b) provides for levy of Re. 0.50 paise, Re. 0.25 paise and Re. 0.15 paise per head of cattle, sheep and goat and poultry respectively brought for sale in the Market' Yard from the sellers as entrance fees. Bye-law 13 (1) (b) provides for levy of Re. 0.50 paise, Re. 0.25 paise and Re. 0.15 paise per head of cattle, sheep and goat and poultry respectively brought for sale in the Market' Yard from the sellers as entrance fees. Bye-law 13 (1) (c) authorises levy two per cent advalorem on the sale of cattle, sheep and goat and poultry from the sellers and buyers both in equal proportion. It has been held by this Court in the judgment in the batch of writ petitions (supra) that a Bye-law authorising levy of two sets of fees, one on sale and one on entry must be held to be bad. In that view of the matter, Bye-law 13 (1) (b) and (c) cannot be simultaneously worked out and the Market Committee should suitably amend the Bye-law to confine the levy only on sale. We have examined the amended Bye-law, but instead of declaring a portion of the Byelaw to be ultra vires, have made some observations requiring the Market Committee to amend the Bye-law in accordance with our observations, since the Petitioners have not made any amendment to the writ petitions by incorporating the amended provisions and challenging the same. 6. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are disposed of, but there would be no order as to costs. L. Rath, J. 7. I agree.