JUDGMENT NARAYAN ROY, J. :- Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ application, the petitioners have challenged notices as contained in Annexure- 1 series issued by the respondent-Market Secretary and also notices dated 2-8-93 as contained in Annexure-2 series issued by the Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Chairman of the Barh Market Committee requiring them to deposit shop rent at the rate of Rs. 213 per month with effect from April, 1988 to July, 1993 against allotment of shops to them in the principal market yard. 3. The main thrust of the writ petitioners in this application is two fold-firstly that the Market Committee has no jurisdiction to enhance occupation charges• or rent for the premises in question and secondly that even assuming that the Market, Committee can realise occupation charges, but in any view of the matter, the rate cannot be higher than what was charged from the occupants. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Market Committee submitted that this question is no more res integra and it has already been set at rest by several decisions of this Court. Learned Counsel for the Market Committee in this regard has placed reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench in the case of M/s Maliram Puranchand & others. v. Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gaya & others C.W.J.C No. 7015 of 1991 disposed of on 23-1-96. It appears that at the time of shifting of the business of the petitioner in the principal market-yard, Barh, rent of RS.1001- per month was fixed for each shop and the petitioners had paid the rental. This fact has been admitted in paragraph 22 of the writ application by the petitioners. It further appears that the petitioners though have paid the rent at the rate of Rs-100/- per month, now they are challenging the very jurisdiction of the Market Committee to enhance the rate. In the case of M/s Maliram Puranchand & others (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that the Market Committee being local authority under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 is fully entitled to realise rent or make enhancement in appropriate cases. This question was also considered by this Court in the case of Khandelwal Trading Co. v. The State of Bihar and others. C.W.J.C No 730 of 1986 (R). 5. This question was also considered by this Court in the case of Khandelwal Trading Co. v. The State of Bihar and others. C.W.J.C No 730 of 1986 (R). 5. from the facts as enumerated in the writ application, it is borne out that at the relevant time when the shops of the petitioners were shifted In the Principal Market-yard, several persons had agreed to pay occupation charges at the rate of Rs.100/- per month. It is also borne out from the facts of the case that while enhancing occupation charges, the Market Committee had issued notices to the petitioners and they were heard and thereafter the rental was fixed at the rate of Rs. 213/- per month. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, in my opinion, this case is fully covered by the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of M/s Maliram Puranchand & others (supra) 7. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The interim order dated 31.10.94, thus stands vacated.