JUDGMENT Radha Mohan Prasad, J. In the present writ application the order of the Assessment Sub-Committee of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Saharsa, dated 16.12.1983 (Annexure-3) has been assailed inter alia on the ground that the said order is bad, as it does not disclose any reason for the findings arrived at by the Assessment Sub-committee. 2. Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Assessment Sub-committee constituted under Section 27A of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act for the purpose of assessment and levy of fee exercises a quasi judicial power as has also been held by this Court in the case of Ramautar Choudhry vs. The Managing Director, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna and others, reported in 1984 PLJR 412 and thus the Committee must record reasons for the findings arrived at by them. 3. Learned Counsel for the State has not been able to dispute the said proposition. However, he submitted that the impugned order of Assessment (annexure-2) is a detailed order and it cannot be held that it does not contain the reasons. 4. From bare perusal of the impugned order (annexure-3) it is difficult to hold that reason has been disclosed for arriving at the findings contained in sub-paras 1 to 5. In fact, from what has been stated in paras 1 to 5 of the impugned order it would appear that the findings of the Secretary of the Committee, who purported to have examined the papers and submitted report are only mentioned and on that basis alone the impugned assessment has been made. In my opinion, the members of the Assessment Sub-committee ought to have examined the record and verified the papers themselves and recorded reasons for any alleged non-payment of the market fee by the petitioner. From the last paragraph of the impugned order it is evident that the Assessment Sub-committee considered the report submitted by the Secretary and passed the order of assessment without disclosing any reason in support of the findings arrived at by the secretary in the report. Thus, on this ground alone the writ application must succeed. 5. In the result, the writ application is ail owed and the impugned order of assessment, contained in annexure 3 and the consequential demand notice contained in annexure-4 are quashed. Thus, on this ground alone the writ application must succeed. 5. In the result, the writ application is ail owed and the impugned order of assessment, contained in annexure 3 and the consequential demand notice contained in annexure-4 are quashed. However, it will be open for the Assessment Sub-Committee to make fresh assessment after giving notice to the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.