Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 17.5.2000 passed by the Managing Director, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna in Appeal Petition No. 1 of 2000. By the impugned order (copy at Annexure 5) the Managing Director of the Marketing Board rejected the petitioners request for grant of licence under Rule 129 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Rules for holding cattle fare, twice in a year on plot no. 338 under khata no. 155 (3.63 acres in area) being his raiyati land. While rejecting the petitioners request for grant of licence, the Managing Director also observed that his application for licence could only be considered on his obtaining the necessary permission from the Collector of the district under section 23 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. 2. The material facts of the case are brief and can be stated as follows. A cattle fare, called the Samda Cattle Mela is held since long (for the past more than fifty years) at village Samda under Paliganj police station in Patna district. The fare is held twice a year on the occasions of Makar Sankranti and Baisakh Satuani. Till the year 1997 the settlement for holding Mela was made by the Block Dev. Officer, Paliganj. But after that the State Govt. transferred the right to hold the fare to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bihta within whose jurisdiction the fare falls and from the year, 1998 the settlement for holding the fare is being made by the Market Committee, Bihta. 3. According to the Petitioner, the Mela is spread over a large area of land that includes plot no. 338, under khata no. 155 (area 3.63 acres), plot no. 337, under khata no. 147 (area 1.90 acres) and plot no. 319 under Khata no. 147 (area 0.67 acres) being his raiyati lands and he was, therefore, entitled to a licence for holding Mela under rule 29 of the Agricultural Produce Market Rules. The petitioner makes a grievance that though Mela was held on his raiyati land, he was deprived from realising ground rent from persons occupying his land for want of a due licence issued by the Market Committee. 4. The respondent authorities seem to take the stand that Mela was held on plot no. 336, under Khata no. 156 (total area 1.61 acres) which was Ghair Mazrua Malik land. 4. The respondent authorities seem to take the stand that Mela was held on plot no. 336, under Khata no. 156 (total area 1.61 acres) which was Ghair Mazrua Malik land. On behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the Market Committee made settlement in favour of a private person for holding the Mela only over plot no. 336, khata no. 156. 5. The statement made by the officials of the Market Committee that settlement was made only in regard to plot no. 336 under khata no. 156 in no way controverts the case of the petitioner that the Mela was in fact held over a large piece of land including his raiyati plots. It is obvious that the Market Committee (and before it the State) could make settlement only of plot no. 336, khata no. 156 for the simple reason that it is the only piece of Ghair Mazrua Khas land. Obviously the Market Committee (or before it the State) could not give in settlement to any third party the raiyati lands owned and possessed by other raiyats. But that alone would not mean that the Mela was in fact confined to the Ghair Mazrua Khas land and it did not spread over the adjoining plots being the raiyati lands of other raiyats. 6. In fact there are materials on record of this case to show that the petitioners case that the Mela was held over a large area, including his raiyati plots is quite correct. 7. It is noted earlier that the total area of plot no. 336, khata no. 156 is 1.61 acres. According to the petitioner, more than half of its area was eaten up due to erosion made by the river; further, small pieces from this land (totalling to 0.5 acre) were settled in favour of some landless persons on payment of rent. As a result what remained of plot no. 336, khata no. 156 was only 0.31 acre out of its original area of 1.61 acre. It is pointed out by the petitioner that it was impossible to hold a cattle fare over a small area of 0.31 acre and the Mela would inevitably require a large area. 8. The case of the petitioner tends to receive support from some documents of the Market Committee, photo-stat copies of which are made annexures to the writ petition. 9. 8. The case of the petitioner tends to receive support from some documents of the Market Committee, photo-stat copies of which are made annexures to the writ petition. 9. It appears that when the right to hold Mela was transferred by the State to the Market Committee, the latter wished to know the exact area of land over which the Mela was held. In this regard some correspondence was made between the Secretary, Market Committee and the Block Dev. Officer, Paliganj. At Annexure 3 to the writ petition is a communication adressed to the Secretary, Market Committee from the Block Dev. Officer, Paliganj under his letter no. 382, dated 27.9.99. In this letter, plot-wise details are given of the land over which the Mela is held. At serials 1, 2 and 16 plots of the petitioner are mentioned; at serial no. 5 is the Ghair Mazrua Malik land of plot no. 336, khata no. 156 (area 1.61 acres). But at the bottom of the letter, there is a note stating that half of the area of plot 336 has been washed away due to erosion by the river. It further appears that on receipt of the letter from the Block Dev. Officer, the Secretary, Market Committee directed the Market Inspector to make an enquiry as regards the total area of the petitioners land over which Mela is held (See Annexure 4). The Market Inspector submitted a report stating that 80% of the Mela was held over the raiyati land of the petitioner, as claimed by him. 10. It was in the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioner made an application for grant of licence under rule 129 of the Agricultural Produce Market Rules. His application was rejected by the Secretary, Market Committee, Bihta. Against the order passed by the Secretary, he preferred an appeal before the Managing Director, Agricultural Marketing Board but his appeal too was dismissed by order, dated 17.5.2000 against which this writ petition is filed. 11. From the impugned order, it appears that on the basis of the materials on record even the Managing Director conceded, though grudgingly, that Mela was held on the petitioners raiyati land. He made the observation that it seemed that Mela, at its peak, spread over the raiyati plots of the petitioner as well. Nevertheless he did not accede to the petitioners request for the grant of the licence. 12. He made the observation that it seemed that Mela, at its peak, spread over the raiyati plots of the petitioner as well. Nevertheless he did not accede to the petitioners request for the grant of the licence. 12. On hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the authorities of the Market Committee and the Marketing Board denied licence to the petitioner under the apprehension that the grant of licence to private persons would weaken and undermine the Mela being held by the Market Committee. One of the main grounds of objection against the grant of licence to the petitioner was that it would adversely affect the Mela held on the Government land and it would cause loss of revenue to the Government. Under this apprehension, the application for licence was rejected using the amended provision of section 23 of the Bihar Tenancy Act as a pretext. 13. On a careful consideration of the matter, I find that the apprehension of the market authorities is quite mis-conceived and the pretext used for denying the licence is completely untenable and illegal. The question of a Mela being held by the Market Committee being adversely affected may arise if another separate Mela is allowed to be held nearby and in the neighbourhood of the Mela held by the Market Committee. But, here it is not a separate or different Mela but it is the same Mela which is being held over a large area of land of which the Government land and the raiyati land of the petitioner formed part. By virtue of the licence, the petitioner would be able to collect ground rent for the use of his land which is any way his legal right and which is denied to him by the refusal to grant licence. Since it is the same Mela, there is no question of the grant of licence to the petitioner having an adverse effect on a Government Mela or causing loss of revenue to the Government. 14. Similarly, making the permission of the Collector under section 23 of the Bihar Tenancy Act a condition precedent for considering the request for licence appears to be quite untenable in law. 14. Similarly, making the permission of the Collector under section 23 of the Bihar Tenancy Act a condition precedent for considering the request for licence appears to be quite untenable in law. The amendment introduced in section 23 of the Bihar Tenancy Act by Bihar Act 21 of 1993 was intended to prohibit, without the prior permission of the Collector, the use of land in a manner that would materially impair its value or render it unfit for the purpose of tenancy. Now, this court finds it difficult to conceive that holding of cattle fare under the aegies of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee would be a use of land contrary to agricultural purposes, requiring any prior permission from the Collector. 15. Moreover the licensing authority, the Market Secretary at the first instance and the Managing Director of the Board as the appellate authority derived their authority and power under the Agricultural Produce Markets Act and the Rules framed there-under and they were, therefore, required to consider the petitioners application for licence under the provisions of rule 129 of the Rules. If the petitioner satisfied the conditions prescribed by the rule, his request for licence could not be rejected on grounds extraneous to the Act and the Rules. 16. For the reasons discussed above, I am satisfied that the impugned order is bad and invalid and this matter warrants an interference by this court. The order, dated 17.5.2000 passed by the Managing Director of the Marketing Board is accordingly set aside the matter is remitted to him for a fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of this order. It will be open to the Managing Director to satisfy himself on the basis of the materials already on record or by holding fresh enquiry as to whether or not the Mela was actually held on the raiyati land of the petitioner because much would depend on this finding of fact. If Mela is not held on the raiyati land of the petitioner, that would be the end of the matter. But in case it is found that normally the mela was held also on the raiyati land of the petitioner, the Managing Director would pass an order taking that crucial fact into consideration. 17. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.