Judgment 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of letter No. 399 dated 20.4.1998 issued by the Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, contained in-Annexure 1, whereby the petitioner has been required to produce evidence that the sale of 1945 quintals of rice to the exporter was exempted from the levy of market fee. 2. It appears that the Explanation to Section 2 (p-i) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 was inserted by Act 60 of 1982 enlarging the definition of sale and bringing within its fold even goods transferred from one place to another. The validity of the said provision was challenged in the case of M/s Ashok Industries & anor. V/s. State of Bihar & ors. and the Court instead of declaring the provision ultra vires and in order to make the provision workable shifted the onus on the trader to establish that the concerned transaction was mere transfer and not sale and also gave an option to the Market Committee or assessment Sub-Committee to give notice to the trader to establish that the transaction was not sale. The judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Ashok Industries & anor. V/s. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1985 PLJR 111 has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1987 PLJR (S.C.) 15. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the law settled the Market Committee vide Annexure 5 held that the market fee is payable on such transaction of rice. 4. This Court fails to appreciate as to how the petitioner can be said to be aggrieved by Annexure. 5. In fact, in view of law settled in the case of M/s Ashok Industries & anor. vs. State of Bihar & ors. (supra) the Market Secretary has rightly issued the impugned notice to the petitioner with respect to sale of 1945 quintals of rice to the exporter as onus was with the petitioner to establish that the concerned transaction was mere transfer and not sale whereupon the Market Committee or the assessment Sub-Committee is required to give notice to establish that the transaction was not sale. In fact, it was for the petitioner to satisfy the authority concerned. This having not been done by the petitioner and rushing to this Court against the notice (Annexure 1), in my opinion, was not proper. 5. In fact, it was for the petitioner to satisfy the authority concerned. This having not been done by the petitioner and rushing to this Court against the notice (Annexure 1), in my opinion, was not proper. 5. However, as prayed, the writ application is permitted to be withdrawn.