Judgment D. P. Wadhwa, Aftab Alam, J. 1. The petitioners in this application challenge a notification dated december 27, 1995 issued by the order of the governor of Bihar in exercise of power under Sec.39 of the Bihar Agricultural produce Markets Act (the Act hereinafter ). By the impugned notifiction (copy at annexure-1) chura (flattened rice) has been re-introduced in the schedule to the Act at serial No.19 under the heading cereals. As a consequence chura is once again included in the list of agricultural produce within the meaning of Sec.2 (i) (a) of the Act. 2. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the notification on the ground that it was issued without inviting any objections, suggestions, etc. from the general public. 3. Mr. Ram Janam Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the marketing Board submitted, and in our opinion rightly, that the power of the state Government to amend the schedule under Sec.39 of the Act was quite unfettered and the Government had no legal obligation to issue any prior notice inviting objections, suggestions, etc. before making addition of any article (s) in the schedule or making cancellation of any item (s) specified in the schedule. The question of inviting objections would arise only when an agricultural produce is brought within the regulatory provisions of the Act by the issuance of the notifications under Secs.3 and 4 of the Act. 4. Mr. lara Kant Jha countered that in that case the impugned notification would put chura only in the list of agriculture produce but in the absence of any notifications issued under Secs.3 and 4 of the Act, it would be still outside the regulatory provisions of the Act and no market fee, etc. could be lawfully collected on the sale and purchase of chura unless notifications under Secs.3 and 4 were issued in its respect in accordance with law. It was further asserted that contrary to this legal position but as a matter of fact market fee was being realised by the market committee in respect of chura. 5. Mr. Ram Janam Ojha when called upon by the Court to take a stand on this factual aspect of the matter as rather hesitant and evassive. It was further asserted that contrary to this legal position but as a matter of fact market fee was being realised by the market committee in respect of chura. 5. Mr. Ram Janam Ojha when called upon by the Court to take a stand on this factual aspect of the matter as rather hesitant and evassive. He did not deny the statement that market fee was being realised on the sale and purchase of chura but sought to justify the realisation of market fee on the basis of the provisions contained in Sec.4 of the act. According to him, chura was earlier included in the list of agricultural produce, being specified Act. At that time, notifications under Secs.3 and 4 had been duly issued in respect of chura also. Later, it was deleted from the list but was once again re-introduced by the impugned notification. Mr. Ojha submitted that in such circumstances and in a case of re-introduction of an article in respect of which earlier notifications under Secs.3 and 4 had been issued, no fresh notifications would be required. 6. The submission is quite unacceptable to us. It may be noted that similar submission in the case of sugar was earlier rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in Delhi Cloth and General mills Company Limited V/s. A. T. M. C. , 1992 (2) P. L. J. R.253 (paras 52 and 55 ). 7. We accordingly hold and declare that merely oft the basis of the impugned notification dated December 27, 1995 and in the absence of any fresh notifications in respect of chura, under secs.3 and 4 of the Act, it cannot be deemed to be within the regulatory measures of the Act and no market fee under Sec.27 of the Act can be realised on its sale and purchase. 8. In the result, this application is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Application Allowed.