Order Mr. Jhunjhunwala, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the Market Committee is not functioning and the Special Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Baijnathpur (Respondent No.4) is looking after the affairs of the Market' Committee, the Secretary of the Market Committee could not have signed the order of Re-assessment dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure-4). He further submitted that two assessment orders have been passed for the periods involved in one financial year " 2. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Market Committee, submitted' that such objection is hyper technical. It is not disputed that the Special Officer was empowered to pass such order and only because the Secretary has also signed on. it, it will not become illegal. He further submitted that the order was passed after serving notice on the petitioner, but the petitioner did not choose to appear. He further submits that such order was passed for reassessment of market fees in view of enhanced market fees, though the original assessment order was accepted by the petitioner. He .further submits that it is not a case of two assessment in one financial year, 'rather the order as contained in Annexure4 was passed on recalculation of the enhanced market fees as per Jharkhand State Agriculture Produce Market (Amendment) Act, 2007(Jharkhand Act 15 of 2008 on the basis of the returns filed by the petitioner himself. He further submits that if there is any discrepancy/mistake, the 'same will be looked into. 3. On this, Mt. Jhunjhunwala referred to paragraphs-5 and 6 of the supplementary affidavit, which reads as follows:- "5. That the petitioner firm deposited on account of market fee a sum of Rs. 1,72,094/- from December, 2008 to March, 2009 and whereas from Assessment order (Annexure-4) shows deposit of market fee to the tune of Rs.1,57,115/- 6. That it is stated that assessment was not completed according to the return filed by the petitioner." 4. It is true that the Secretary should not and could not have signed the impugned order when the Market Committee is not functional and the Special Officer was looking into its affairs. But in my opinion. only because the secretary has also signed, it cannot be said that the order has become illegal. It is true that the Secretary should not and could not have signed the impugned order when the Market Committee is not functional and the Special Officer was looking into its affairs. But in my opinion. only because the secretary has also signed, it cannot be said that the order has become illegal. It further appears that it is not a case of passing two orders in one financial year, but the impugned order was passed in view of the enhancement of the market fees. If however, there is any discrepancy/mistake in calculation in the amount deposited by the petitioner and the amount which has been taken into consideration, the same will be looked into. 5. In the circumstances, petitioner is permitted to make a representation in that regard before the Special Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Baijnathpur (Respondent No.4) within two weeks from today, on which, after giving opportunity of explaining to the petitioner, he will pass order as early as possible and preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. It is made clear that this court has not gone into the case of the petitioner that there has been discrepancy/mistake of calculation in the order. With these observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of.