Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against the order bearing letter no. 310 dated 6.8.2002 (Annexure 6), issued under the signature of respondent no. 4 (Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gopalganj), whereby appointment of the petitioner as a collection agent for Pagra Vijayipur Mushahari Bazar for the period 18.5.2002 to 31.3.2003 has been cancelled. 2. The background of this writ petition may first of all be stated. On earlier occasion, an auction took place on 2.2.2002 for appointment of collection agent for the said Bazar and the highest bid of one Dipchand Gupta @ Bridhi Chandra Gupta of Rs. 31,800/- was accepted. The present petitioner had preferred the earlier writ petition bearing CWJC No. 3139 of 2002 (Shambhu Sharan Jaiswal V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.), challenging the said settlement in favour of said Dipchand Gupta @ Bridhi Chand Gupta, which was disposed of by order dated 22.4.2002 (Annexure 2 hereof), wherein it was held that the auction was not conducted fairly. Therefore, the settlement in favour of the said Dipchand Gupta @ Bridhi Chandra Gupta (respondent no. 5 therein) was set aside, and the authorities were directed to conduct a fresh bid on the condition that the petitioners minimum offer would be of Rs. 1,25,000/-. It was further stated in the order that the petitioner was willing to deposit 50% of the amount within a period of one week which he did deposit on 30.4.2002 (Annexure 2 series). Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the auction took place on 17.5.2002, and the petitioners highest bid of Rs. 1,41,000/- was accepted. The second highest bid was of the said Bridhi Chandra Gupta for Rs. 1,40,000/- was not accepted. The petitioner promptly deposited the balance of the amount meaning thereby that he deposited the entire amount of Rs. 1,41,000/- before issuance of the Parwana. Respondent no. 4 issued the Parwana in favour of the petitioner for the period 18.5.2002 to 31.3.2003 (Annexure 5).The petitioner accordingly started making collection. He was, however, soon visited by the impugned order whereby his appointment as collection agent has been cancelled and it has been decided that collection of the market fee and ground rent shall be done depart-mentally with effect from 1.9.2002. Hence this writ petition. 3. While assailing the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same suffers from arbitrariness. Hence this writ petition. 3. While assailing the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same suffers from arbitrariness. He has also not been afforded reasonable opportunity to explain his position. 4. Learned counsel for respondents has made his submissions in support of the impugned order. 5. It appears from a perusal of the pleadings of the parties that the respondent authorities received complaints dated 1.7.2002 (Annexure D), 2.7.2002 (AnnexureE), and dated 3.7.2002 (Annexure F), the substance of which was that the petitioner has engaged musclemen to make collection of the market fee and ground rent and money is being extorted by use of force. Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to justify the impugned order on the basis of sanha entry dated 28.8.2002 (Annexure G), made by the Thana Prabhari, which in substance states the aforesaid allegations against the petitioner that he has engaged his musclemen for collection accompanied with extortion, are correct. The SDO also submitted his confidential report dated 30.9.2002 (Annexure H), which in substance states that the contents of the said sanha entry of the Thana Prabhari are correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly objects to the reliance place by the respondents on Annexures G and H, inter alia, on the ground that the same are of later dates. In other words, the impugned order is dated 6.8.2002, whereas Annexures G & H are dated 28.8.2002 and 30.9.2002 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, right in his submission that these two reports could not have formed the basis for the impugned order. No other material has been placed on record by the respondents which enabled them to reach the impugned decision. This is enough to demonstrate that the impugned order has been passed in hot haste and without proper enquiry. I do not wish to express myself further in the matter so that the ensuing enquiry is not prejudiced either way. 6. In the result, the impugned order dated 6.8.2002 is hereby set aside. Respondent no. 3 (Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Special Officer, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gopalganj), is hereby directed to conduct an enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner after affording him a reasonable opportunity to explain his position. In view of the position that the impugned order has already taken effect, the Market Committee shall continue to make the collection which shall abide the result of the enquiry. In view of the position that the impugned order has already taken effect, the Market Committee shall continue to make the collection which shall abide the result of the enquiry. In case the conclusion of the enquiry goes against the petitioner, then he will be entitled to proportionate refund of the money deposited by him. In case the same goes in favour of the petitioner, then he shall be entitled to work for a total number of days comprising the period as indicated in the Parwana (Annexure 5) i.e. 18.5.2002 to 31.3.2003, after adjusting the number of days for which the petitioner has already worked, even.though the same may exceed the current financial years. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Let a copy of this order he handed over to Mr. K.P. Yadav, Advocate.