JUDGMENT

D. A. DESAI, J. : —Whether the whole includes the parts is the core question. Whether legume, whole grain, when notified as a specified agricultural produce within the meaning of the expression in S. 2(t) of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi, Adhiniyam, 1964 (Act for short) would also comprehend its split folds or parts, commercially called dal so as to enable Mandi Samiti (Market Committee for convenience of reference) to levy market fee under S. 17 of the Act on the transaction of sale of dal of legumes specified in the schedule to the Act, is the narrow question that falls to be determined in this group of appeals.

2. Appellant Market Committee levied market fee on the transaction of sale of dal of various legumes by the respondents, asserting that they were specified agricultural produce and the transactions of sale in respect of them by the respondents in the Market Area would be exigible to the levy of market fee. The respondents contended that they were manufacturing in their factory dal from various legumes and therefore, not only they were not producers of agricultural commodity but in view of the description of legumes set out in the Schedule, the dal of such legumes in the processed form is not a specified agricultural produce and therefore, a transaction of sale in respect of them at the hands of the respondents even if it takes place in the Market Area would not permit the appellant to levy market fee on such transaction and they were not liable to pay the same. The respondents contend that unless the agricultural produce specified in the Schedule to the Act is notified as a specified agricultural produce in respect of a particular Market Area, the Market Committee having jurisdiction in the Market Area will not be entitled to levy market fee on the transaction of sale of such agricultural produce. In short they say that even if legumes set out in the Schedule are specified agricultural produce, the dal processed therefrom in the factory could not become specified agricultural produce unless it is so specified and therefore, the Market Committee had no authority to levy market fee on the transaction of sale of dal. The respondents approached the High Court of Allahabad by filing writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution raising myriad contentions including the one as herein set out.

3. The High Court by its judgment dated 28, 1983 held that legume in its split form was not the same thing as legume specified in the Schedule and therefore, in the absence of a specification, dal of any of the legumes enumerated in the Schedule cannot be said to be specified agricultural produce and therefore, any transaction of sale in respect of them was not exigible to the levy of market fee. In reaching this conclusion, the High Court took note of the fact that apart from anything else the subsequent conduct of the Government of U. P. in issuing Notification No. 383/12-5-600 (401)/81 dated Jan 20, 1982 substituting the entry under the heading II Legumes a description in the bracket against the name of each legume (Saboot Aur Dala Hua) dispelled doubt, if any, lingering on the subject.

4. During the pendency of the writ petitions in the High Court, it appears that the Govt. of U. P. probably out of panic or as contended before us out of abundant caution issued in exercise of the power conferred by S. 4A of the Act the Notification No. 383/12-5-600(401)/81 dated Jan 20, 1982 which reads as under :

"In exercise of the powers conferred upon him under S. 4A of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (U. P. Act No. 25 of 1964) the Governor is hereby pleased to notify that with effect from the date of publication in gazette of this Notification, in place of items mentioned under column (1) under the Heading (legume) in the Schedule of S. 2(a) the following items shall be substituted, namely -

Legumes Amended Krishi Utpadan Legume

1. Chana 1. Chana (Saboot Aur Dala Hua)

2. Matar 2. Matar (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)

3. Arhar 3. A