JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J.—Special leave granted.

2. The vires of the Haryana Rural Development Act 6 of 1986 for short the Act was assailed but repelled by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Subhash Chander Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Punjab {AIR 1990 P&H 259} against which these appeals were laid by leave. Initially the Haryana Rural Development Act 12 of 1983 was made of which ultimately this court in Om Prakash Agarwal v. Giri Raj Kishori {1986) 1 SCC 722} held that Section 3 was unconstitutional on the ground of legislative incompetence as the levy of cess under Section 3 was in the nature of tax and not fee, quid pro quo being absent. Purporting to have removed the defects as pointed out therein, the Act came to be made and the full Bench put its seal of approval on its validity.

3. Shri Shanti Bhushan the learned senior counsel for the appellants in his usual vehemence contended that the agricultural produce is a declared goods under Article 286(2) of the Constitution. This Court declared in Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab {(1980) 1 SCC 416} that constitutionally it is impermissible to levy market fee in excess of 2 per cent. The state legislatu