Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Ram Janam Ojha, learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.8.2003, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the batch of the writ applications, including the writ applications out of which the present appeal arises. 3. The matter is simple one. By the impugned order, the concerned Market Committees have cancelled the appointments of Collecting Agents for collecting market fee from (he agriculturists and traders under the provisions of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Markets Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said collecting agents were appointed by the Market Committees in exercise of power under Rule 82 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules framed under section 27 of the Act. 4. The Act has been enacted to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling of Agricultural Produce and the Establishment of Markets for Agricultural Produce in the State of Bihar and for matters connected therewith. Section 27 of the Act empowers the different Market Committees to levy and collect market fees. It further provides that the fee is to be collected from the purchasers in the manner as prescribed under the Rules. Rule 82 of the Rules, prior to amendment in 1996, provided for collection of market fee on agricultural produce bought or sold in the rnarket area by the authorised officer or staff or any person authorised by the Market Committee. The said provision vvas amended in the year 1996 and it made a specific provision that the Market Committee may get the collections made by the authorised officers or staff or any collecting agent as authorised by the Market Committee. 5. In terms of the aforesaid provision, the appellants and others were appointed as Collecting Agents after holding a public auction. They being the highest bidder, an agreement was entered into between them for collection of the market fees of the different market committee for the year 2003-2004. According to amended Rule 82 (2) of the Rules, the appointment of the Collecting Agent is to be approved by the Director of the Board. According to the stand of the respondents, the agreement entered into between the parties has not been approved by the Board. 6. According to amended Rule 82 (2) of the Rules, the appointment of the Collecting Agent is to be approved by the Director of the Board. According to the stand of the respondents, the agreement entered into between the parties has not been approved by the Board. 6. While the agreement was subsisting, it came to the notice of the Board that the purchasers as well as the agriculturists are being harassed and coerced by the Collecting Agents for different Market Committee and, accordingly, it took a policy decision to do away with the system of appointment of Collecting Agents and get the work done departmentally and the said decision was communicated by the Board to the different Market Committees on 6.6.2003 and further mentioning therein that in case of these contracts in which approval has not been given by the Director of the Board, the same should be cancelled and the money for the period for which collection has not been made, is to be refunded. There are other directions also, but they are not necessary to be stated and in pursuance of that, action has been taken by the Market Committees cancelling the agreement in favour of the appellants and others and to take collection of market fee through departmental authorities. 7. The writ application, out of which the present appeal arises and other connected writ applications were heard together and dismissed by the fearned Single Judge on the ground that once policy decision has been taken in the interest of agriculturists, the same cannot be assailed on any of the grounds urged on behalf of the appellants of this appeal as well as the counsel appearing for other parties. 8. Mr. Ram Janam Ojha, learned senior counsel for the appellants, submitted that the policy decision taken by the Board is in breach of Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India, which gives right to every citizen to practise any profession and to carry on any occupation, trade or business. 9. We fail to understand how that Article is be pressed into service in this case. No doubt, every citizen has a right to practise any profession and to carry on any occupation, trade or business but the same is subject to the restrictions that may be put by the State Government in the interest of general public or for the protection of the interest of general public etc. No doubt, every citizen has a right to practise any profession and to carry on any occupation, trade or business but the same is subject to the restrictions that may be put by the State Government in the interest of general public or for the protection of the interest of general public etc. The Act itself has been enacted for the benefit of the agriculturists and if a policy decision is taken by the Government to protect the interest of the agriculturists with a view to protect them from being harassed or coerced by the Cellecting Agents by their unauthorised acts, the same cannot be said to be in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 10. Mr. Ojha also assailed the policy decision of the Board on the ground of unreasonableness or arbitrariness. This point also does not appeal to us for the simple reason that from the counter-affidavit as filed by the Board and the relevant paragraphs, which have been quoted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it is apparent that the said decision was necessitated to protect the agriculturists and the traders from harassment. In this connection, it is useful to quote paragraph 7(e) of the Supplementary counter-affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 5353 of 2003 [reported in 2003 (4) PLJR 563 ] as follows : "7(e) That apart from the cases of cancellation of contracts referred to in the foregoing paragraphs of this Supple mentary counter affidavit the question of extortion and high handedness being indulged into by the collecting agents was also raised in the Bihar Legislative Assembly. In this connection reference may be made to the proceedings of the Bihar Legislative Assembly with regard to Assurance No. 174/2001 dated 30.3.2001 raised by Sri Ganesh Paswan. It was stated by the members in the State Legislative Assembly that the collecting agents part from the working the buyers and their agents were also harassing and exploiting members of the Public who did not come within the jurisdiction of the Market Committee. It was, therefore, urged that the system of collection of market fee through collecting agents be abolished forthwith and collection of market fee should henceforth be done departmentally." 11. The last submission advanced by Mr. It was, therefore, urged that the system of collection of market fee through collecting agents be abolished forthwith and collection of market fee should henceforth be done departmentally." 11. The last submission advanced by Mr. Ojha was that once contract has been entered into between the parties and that was in operation then that should not have been terminated in the midst of the settlement period. 12. From the relevant provision, as stated above, the contract was subject to approval by the Board. The same was not approved and as such the same has not attained finality. This apart, if once a policy decision was taken to do away with the said system in the public interest as indicated above, the cancellation of the settlement before expiry of the period thereof cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable, specially when the Board has already directed the Market Committees to refund the amount for the period during which no collection has been made. 13. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.