JUDGMENT 1. - After attempting to argue the matter for some more time, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this batch of similar writ petitions submit that in view of the objections urged on behalf of the respondents about the matter involving disputed questions of fact and about availability of alternative remedy per Section 34(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 ('the Act of 1961'), the petitioners shall stand advised not to proceed with these writ petitions any further; and seek permission to withdraw with liberty for the petitioners to take resort to the remedy under Section 34(2)(b) of the Act of 1961 and further liberty to take resort to appropriate remedies, in case any grievance remains after the decision of the matter under Section 34(2)(b) of the Act of 1961. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection if the entire matter is kept open and rights of the parties to take resort to appropriate remedies in accordance with law are kept intact. 3. These writ petitions were filed in the wake of the Notification dated 27.04.2005 whereby Sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 ('the Rules of 1963') was deleted; and the petitioners essentially averred that they had been purchasing agriculture produces from outside the State of Rajasthan and were bringing about a different product by way of processing and, therefore, according to the petitioners, no market fees could have been levied upon them under Section 17 of the Act of 1961. The submissions of the respondents have been that the petitioners failed to furnish the requisite information as required by the Rules of 1963 and Bye-laws framed thereunder and,4 therefore, some of the petitioners were issued notices; and that the contentions urged in these petitions pertain to the disputed questions of fact about the source of purchase of the petitioners, about the effect of processing done by them, and about the sale made thereafter and if at all the petitioners had any grievance as to whether any money is due to the concerned market committee or not, the same could have been referred under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Act of 1961; and else, the validity of the Notification dated 27.04.2005 has already been upheld by this Court in CWP No.620/2008 (M/s. Saurabh Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v. State & Ors.) on 24.01.2008. 4. Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case and the stand of the respective parties, this Court finds it appropriate and in the interest of justice that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw with liberty for them to make, within 30 days, proper representation/s to the Director concerned under Section 34(2)(b) of the Act of 1961 and with liberty to the parties to take resort to appropriate remedies in accordance with law, if any grievance remains after the decision by the Director on such representation/s. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is considered appropriate, and hence observed, that it shall be expected of5 the Director concerned to deal with the matter expeditiously and to take final decision as early as possible preferably within 60 days from the date of making representation/s; and if any prayer for interim relief is made by the petitioners, the same may also be considered by the Director in accordance with law. 5. Needless to say that it shall be expected of the Director to objectively examine the matter on the representation/s, if made within 30 days from today, after making appropriate enquiry and affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the applicants. 6. The petitions are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty for the parties as aforesaid. No costs.Petition dismissed. *******