JUDGMENT S. Roy, J. The petitioners, traders under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (the Act) have prayed for a declaration that the bye-laws of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jamshedpur (respondent no. 3) are ultra vires section 53(2) of the Act having not been promulgated and published as required by section 26 of the Bihar & Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917 (the General Clauses Act). They prayed for a further declaration that bye-laws 41(8) was ultra vires Rule 96 of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Markets Rules, 1975 (The Rules). They have also prayed for quashing part of Annexure-3, the notice which appeared in the newspaper on 26.1.1989 under the signature of respondent no. 4, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 2. So far the bye-laws said to have been framed by respondent no. 3 are concerned, it appears from the brief that the draft bye-laws were duly published and objections were called for. After considering the objections, the Marketing Board approved the bye-laws. The dispute between the parties is whether the byelaws so approved were published as required in section 53(2) of the Act. 3. It was conceded by Mr. Shrideo Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board that the approved bye-laws have neither been published in the Official Gazette nor in the Singhbhum district gazette nor in any news paper. Section 53(2) provides that such bye-laws i.e. bye-laws approved by the Marketing Board &hall be made (sic) previous publication. Clause 26 of the General Clauses Act, inter-alia, provides that where by Bihar Act, a power to make bye-laws is expressed to be given, subject to the condition of the bye-laws being made after previous publication, then the following provision stated in (1) to (5) of Clause 26 shall apply. Clause 26(5) of the General Clauses Act shall read as under ;- "26 (5) ; the publication in the Official Gazette of a rule or by-law purporting to having been made in exercise of a power to make rules or by-laws after previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule or bye-law has been duly made." In view of the fact that the approved bye-laws have not yet been published in the Official Gazette, it must be held that it has not been duly made. If it has not been duly made, the bye-laws have not come into force. 4. If it has not been duly made, the bye-laws have not come into force. 4. It was submitted on behalf of the Marketing Board that by Annexure-3 direction was given to the licensed traders to annex memo of sale with agricultural produce whenever they sent the same outside. By it, perhaps, the traders are required to see that document accompany the agriculture produce whenever it is sent outside the area of the Market Committee. On being questioned, Mr. Mishra submitted that this direction was issued in terms of Rule 96 of the Rules. Rule 96 reads as follows :- "96. Agreement to be executed between buyer and sellers :-Every purchaser of agricultural produce shall sign an agreement in triplicate in Form XXII in favour of the seller as soon as any transaction is effected. One copy of the agreement shall be kept by the buyer, other copies shall be kept by the seller or his agent and the third copy shall be submitted to the Market Committee along with the filing of return under subsection (2) of section 27A. The printed form of the agreement shall be supplied by the Market Committee at such price as may be fixed by the Market Committee." 5. This rule provides that every purchaser shall sign an agreement in the form prescribed. The prescribed form provides for the signature of the Market Committee's servant and of the buyer or his agent. Rule 96 and the form, both require the purchaser i.e. the buyer to execute the agreement. By notice as contained in Annexure-3, the traders are required to send memo of sale along with the agricultural produce which is sent outside the area of the Market Committee. The direction, therefore, could not have been given under - Rule 96. The direction given by the Sub-Divisional Officer claiming himself to be the Special Officer of Jamshedpur Area Market Committee as contained in Anncxure-3 is wholly without jurisdiction. 6. In the result, the application is allowed and Annexure is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.