Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. Md. Mlsbahuddin holds a Gudrl Hat (Misc. Hat) on his raiyatl land under a valid licence granted by the Agriculture Produce Market Committee. Katlhar. The Hat is being held since 1994. The licence for the year, 2001-02 was granted to him on 15-3-2001. A lew months later, on 9-10-2001. licence was granted by the Market Committee to Md. Nazlbur Ralmuul (respondent No. 5) as well. for holding Hat on his own ralyall land. the land of Md. Nazibur Rahman for holing hat over which licence was granted is merely at a distance of 40 meters from the Hat of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the grant of licence for the second Hat had an adverse Impact on his collections and it was also in viola-, lion of the directions issued by the State Government and the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board. 2. Challenging the grant of licence to Md. Nazibur Rahman he earlier came to this Court in CWJC No. 15125 of 2001. That writ petition was dismissed by a single Judge by order, dated 13-12-2001 (Annexure 8) with a direction to the Marketing Committee, Kalihar to dispose of his representation/ objection to the gratit of licence to Md. Nazibur Rahman after affording both sides an opportunity of hearing. He took the matter in appeal, being L/F.A. No. 125 of 2002. The appeal was disposed of by order, dated 29-1 -2001. the relevant "portion of which in as follows : "After having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Board, we are of the view that the question as to whether the licence can be granted to hold another Mela within the prohibited area or riot cannot be decided in writ application. This question has to be decided by the authority who is on the spot. In that, view of the matter" we dispose of this appllcatlon with a direction to the Secretary of the Market Committee. Katihar to consider the grievance of the petitioner am lake a decision within 10 clays from the date of filing a petition by the appellant pointing out the aforesaid illegalities as well as any other illegalities with regard to grant ((licence In favour of private respondent." 3. On remand by this Court the Secretary. Market Committee. Katihar to consider the grievance of the petitioner am lake a decision within 10 clays from the date of filing a petition by the appellant pointing out the aforesaid illegalities as well as any other illegalities with regard to grant ((licence In favour of private respondent." 3. On remand by this Court the Secretary. Market Committee. Katihar stems to have examined the matter in suine detail, taking into consideration all tin material facts and circumstances, lie not only heard the parlies but also held spot Inspection on two dates, 5-2-2002 (being a Tuesday) and 8-2 2002 (being a Friday). From the order it appears that a spot inspection was made by him also on 28-9-2001, that is, prior to the grant of licence to Md. Nazibur Rahman.) On a consideration of the relevant materials, he passed a detailed order on 12-2-2002, rejected the objections raised by the petitioner and reaffirming the decision for the grant of licence for the second Hat to Md. Nazibur Rahman. 4. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 13-3-2002 challenging the order, dated 12-2-2002 passed by the Secretary, Market Committee, Katihar. The. period for which the licences were granted has expired during the pendency of this writ petition and it is not clear whether licence for the second Hat was renewed for the subsequent years. But assuming the position to be so, I proceed to dispose of this case on merits. 5. Before proceeding further it is to be borne in mind that both the Hats held by the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are biweekly. The licence given to the petitioner permits him to hold Hat every Tuesday and Saturday and the licence of respondent No. 4 is for holding Hat on Monday and Friday. In other words, though the two Hats are held at a distance of only forty meters, there is no clash of days. The Hats are being held on separate days of the week. Previously there used to be two Hat days; after the grant of licence to respondent No. 5, Hats are being held there on four days in a week. 6. Coming now to the order passed by the Secretary of the Market Committee, he has recorded a number of findings of fact on the basis of his local inspections and the submissions of the parties. 6. Coming now to the order passed by the Secretary of the Market Committee, he has recorded a number of findings of fact on the basis of his local inspections and the submissions of the parties. From his order, it appears that earlier the petitioner had the monopoly position and neither the shopkeepers nor the consumers, the buyers from the Hat were very happy with his behaviour and attitude. Differences arose between the shop-keepers and the petitioner and this led to the establishment of the second Hat by respondent No, 4. The establishment of the second Hat has satisfied and greatly pleased not only the shop-keepers but. all the buyers from the neighbouring villages. In the order passed by him, the Secretary observed that both the Hats were held at the place lying on the border of two villages, namely, Phulkawai and Maraghia. The Hats were at a central place and served the needs of twenty neighbouring villages. The railway station was at a distance of only 2 kms. There were 54 shops in the Hat of the peti~ tioner which was held over a piece of land with an area of 45 decimals. In the second Hat held by respondent No. 5, over an area of 55 decimals there were 54 shops. He further recorded the finding that the number of Shops in the two Hats and the respective areas made available for holding the Hats showed that one Hat was not sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the area. The Secretary further observed : "That there is opinion among the people in general using both the Hat-land that competitive Hats have provided them a lot of relief. Nearly on alternative day they are in a position to sell and purchase their goods as per their requirement; small vegetable farmers and day to day consumers who had to travel a considerable long distance for their petty transaction appreciated the establishment of both Hats." 7. He then recorded all the important finding that there was a need of another Hat in addition to the former to meet the requirement of the neighbouring villagers on competitive basis. He further observed that the difference between the two licence-holders was more of a personal nature, than commercial and neither of the two could be said to be undesirable for the grant of licence for holding Hat. 8. Mr. He further observed that the difference between the two licence-holders was more of a personal nature, than commercial and neither of the two could be said to be undesirable for the grant of licence for holding Hat. 8. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the order to grant licence for the second Hat on the ground that it was violative of the Government direction as also the direction issued by the Marketing Board. He referred to a circular letter, dated 5-11-1960 (Annexure 1) issued by the Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Government of Bihar to all the Collectors. In the circular letter, it was said that no parallel Hat should be allowed within the vicinity of three miles. He also referred to a letter, dated 3-11-1999 (Annexure 2) from the Chief Director of the Marketing Board to the Secretary, Market Committee, Mohania in connection with some cattle fair in that Market Committee. The letter from the Marketing Board referred to the Government circular of 5-11 -1960 and directed that licence for holding cattle fair should be granted in the light of that circular. 9. With regard to the minimum distance between two Hats any reliance on the Government circular as also on the letter issued by the Marketing Board appears to me to be quite misconceived. It may be noted that the Government direction is of the year 1960, that is, long before the framing of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1975. After the Rules came into force, the grant of licence for setting up Hat/Bazar/ Mela is governed by the statutory provision as contained in Rule 129. The statutory provision relevant, for the present is contained in Rule 129(iii)(gh) that lays down, as one of the conditions for grant of licence, that the licensing authority should be satisfied that there was need to establish or set up a Hat/ Bazar/for agricultural produce. The expression "need to establish" is of much wider import and it also takes within its fold the relative distance between two Hats. The relative distance between two Hats cannot be a uniform criterion in all conditions. The expression "need to establish" is of much wider import and it also takes within its fold the relative distance between two Hats. The relative distance between two Hats cannot be a uniform criterion in all conditions. The need for the establishment of another Hat may depend upon many considerations, such as the nature of agricultural produce mainly being sold in the Hat, the amount of produce being available for sale, the density of population, the requirements and the purchasing power of the consumers etc. In a given case there may not be need for two Hats even at a relative distance of more than three miles and in another case two or more Hats may co-exist at the same place. 10. After coming into force of the Market Rules, the direction contained in the Government circular lost its relevance. 11. The same would apply to the letter issued by the Marketing Board. It can only be seen as a direction given in the facts of a particular Hat otherwise it must be held to be unenforceable and inoperative being at variance with and in derogation to the statutory rules. 12. As noted above, the Secretary in the impugned order has recorded the finding, at two places, that there was the need for the second Hat. and the finding is based on good reasons. The finding cartnot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. The grant of licence to respondent No. 5, therefore, cannot be held to be bad or illegal by any means. 13. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. This writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.