Judgment

MOHAN, J.:- Since common-points of law are involved, all these appeals are dealt with under one judgment.

2. The appellants, commission agents were carrying on trade in the notified market area. The attack is as to the levy of market fee on them in relation to the business of khandsari sugar. To highlight the issue involved we will set out the legal background first.

3. The U. P. Legislature passed an Act called U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam in the year 1964 as Act 25 of 1964. The object of the Act was to regulate the sale and purchase of agricultural produce and for the establishment, superintendence and control of markets in U. P. Section 5 of the Act confers powers on the State Government in relation to regulation of sale and purchase of any agricultural produce in any area wherein such transactions are usually carried on and for that purpose to declare the area as a market area. This declaration is to be by way of a notification. Section 7 empowers even a portion of that market area be specified as a principal market yard, while such other portions could be specified as sub-market yard. The effect of such declaration of market area is spoken to under Section 9. In that, no person shall deal with specified agricultural, produce except in accordance with the conditions of licence granted by the Committee. Sub-section (9)(ii) is specific, while it says the commission agent, trader, or broker will have to carry on the business in accordance with the conditions of licence. Section 10 prohibits realisation of trade purchases from the producers from the sale and purchase of specific. agricultural produce except those which are permitted by the rules or bye-laws.

4. Section 17, about which we will deal with later talks of the powers of the Mandi Samiti. Section 40 confers rule-making power.

5. The commission agents, carrying on business by sale and purchase of gur, rab, shakkar and khandsari questioned the enforcement of the Act in respect of these merchandise. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that they would not constitute agricultural produce within the meaning of Cl. (A) of Section 2 of the Act. The reason was it involves manufacture changing the nature of agricultural produce.

6. In order to get over this difficulty, the definition of agricultural produce was amended by U. P. Act 10 of 1970, and, as a result, gur, rab, shakkar and khandsari and jaggery became agricultural produce. The validity of amending Act 10 of 1970 was questioned on various grounds, which, of course, need not concern us. A Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 175 of 1973 cl . dated 7-9-77 concurring with the learned single Judge repelled the contentions and upheld the validity.

7. It is important to note that pending this Special Appeal No. 175 of 1973, the operation of the notice dated 13-9-73 issued under Section 8 of the Act was suspended in so far as it related to khandsari. However, on 6-9-75 order of stay was modified and the Mandi Samiti was directed to keep the amounts realised by them in a separate account. This order was by agreement between the parties. It has an important bearing since arguments were raised as to the effect of the order of stay, and that is why, we are mentioning at this stage itself.

8. The trader carrying on business within the jurisdiction of several Market Committees challenged the levy of fee before the High Court of Allahabad from time to time. There were several rounds of litigation in which they failed. Thereupon, they came up with an appeal. This Court ultimately gave a direction that the market fee should be regularised and charged in the light of the judgment. Concerning the services whenever rendered by the Market Committee, it was observed at page 1141 as follows:

"....We do hope that services are being rendered and will continue to be rendered b y the various Market Committees in the light of the judgment of this Court in Kewal Krishan Puris case. If in regard to any particular Market Co