( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions, the complaint is that even though there is no sale or purchase within the area of a Market Committee, they are being harassed and subjected to pay the market fees again and again. Under Section 12 (1) of A. P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, the Market Committee is obligated to levy the fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area at the rate specified. There is a presumption under Explanation I to the above section that all notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock taken out of a notified market area shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been purchased or sold within such area. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 places an obligation on the purchaser to pay the said market fees and only if purchaser cannot be identified, then the market fees shall be paid by the seller. The scope of relevant rule, which falls for consideration, is Rule 74 (1) of A. P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969. The said rule explains the extent of the liability of the effect that if the fees leviable under sub-section (1) of Section 12 on notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock, if paid to a Market Committee within the State shall not be collected by another Market Committee when such notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock are brought into the notified market area of another Market Committee for the purpose of processing, pressing, packing, storage, export and on sales effected in the course of commercial transactions between the licensed traders, and the licensed traders and consumers subject to production of such evidence as may be prescribed in the Bye-laws about the payment of market fees from where it was brought.

( 2 ) A reading of the above rule leaves no doubt that if there is no transaction of sale or purchase within the market area and if the goods are brought from outside and or in transit passing through the area of another Market Committee, they cannot be subjected to payment of market fees again. Since mere is a presumption under Explanation I to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, such persons carrying the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock shall have to produce evidence to the effect that they are being brought from outside the market area and on production of such evidence, the officers of the Market Committee cannot insist upon payment of market fees again. What is relevant and pertinent is a transaction of sale or purchase within the market area for the first time and then market fees is compulsorily leviable, but no market fees can be collected if they had already suffered market fees of another Market Committee. In Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of A. P. , AIR 1993 SC 1246, several questions arose with regard to prohibition contained in Section 7 (6) against purchase or sale of notified agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock in notified market area outside the market in that area, as also the liability of trader to pay market fees in respect of transactions of sale or purchase in notified area and the Supreme Court upheld the said provisions even if the transaction is carried on from their business premises in the notified market area, but outside the market in that area. The Supreme Court also dealt with the argument with regard to quid pro quo and held that establishment of a regulated market for the purchase or sale of notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock is itself a service rendered to persons engaged in the business of purchase or sale of such commodities. Dealing with Section 12 (1) of the Act and also proviso to Rule 74 (1) of A. P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, it was held by the Supreme Court that Rule 74 (1) read with the proviso means that if the notified agr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document