Judgment 1. A writ petition (CWJC. No. 12233 of 2001; Rishideo Pd. Roy vs. The Bihar State Agricultural Produce Marketing Board & Ors.) had been filed, in effect, to seek certain refunds from the Marketing Board. 2. The learned judge in a very detailed and well considered order has recorded that "the petition before him is the third in series in the vain hope that on the basis of an order (by this Court) he may be able to get some substantial sum of money from the Market Committee which he was prevented to collect due to the premature cancellation of his appointment as collecting agent." 3. The learned judge has noticed the merits of the earlier two petitions and the one before him and also the situation that the entire controversy was not in record except in the writ petition in which a counter affidavit, had been filed. 4. The court has no reason to duplicate the facts, which have been noticed and is not inclined to take a second view on the writ petition. Suffice it to say that the learned judge has also noticed the aspect that the collecting agent apparently went beyond his contract to collect market fee illegally from those who were not to be charged. There are allegations to this effect. In Bihar such allegations as under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code are known as rangdari. In English it is known as extortion. 5. The court has no occasion to take another view on the matter. 6. Dismissed.