( 1 ) THE Agricultural Market Committee, Bapatla is the appellant in all these appeals.

( 2 ) THE Respondents filed suits for a declaration that the demandmade by the Market Committee to pay market fee is illegal and void. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the Market Committee is not entitled to levy demand and collect market fees till facilities are provided enabling the traders to do business and some services are rendered by the market committee. They also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the market Committe from issuing demand and collecting market fee.

( 3 ) THE respondents arc traders having obtained licenced undersection 7 of the Act and have been doing business in sale and purchase of paddy, rice and other notified agricultural produce within the notified market area of the Committee. According to the plaintiffs, the Committee though came into existence 6 years preceding the date of the suit, have not established any market yards etc. It has not provided any facilities in the market yard. Yet, it has been demanding and collecting the licence fee and market fee. The demand is for huge amounts. The action of the market committee is ultra vires and they have no jurisdiction to levy any market fee as no services are rendered and there is no quid pro quo.

( 4 ) THE Committee filed written statement denying the allegations inthe plaint. It averred that the Committee was part of the Agricultural market Committee, Ongole which was bifurcated on 26-2-1974. A notification was issued under Section 3 (3) ot the Act. A Market Committee was constituted under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The Committee started functioning with effect from 30-1-1975. The Government thereafter issued a notification on 30-6-1975 under Section 4 (4) of the Act declaring the market at Bapatfa to be the notified market area. The Government declared paddy, rice, groundnuts and other items to be the notified agricultural produce. On the dale of bifurcation, the Committee was given a sum of Rs. 5. 000/- as itb share by the Market Committee, Ongole and with that money it started functioning. The Market Committee thereafter "acquired 20 acres ot laud at a cost of Rs. 1,33,100/ -. It also established market yard in that area. Two. godowns and an auction platform were constructed. The Government also accorded sanction to undertake works thereby they say that the Committee has been rendering services to the traders as well as growers.

( 5 ) THE trial Court framed several issues. The plaintiff was examinedas P. W. 1 and the Secretary of the Market Committee was examined as d. W. 1 and documents have been marked. Both the Courts have held that no services are rendered by the Committee though considerable period had elapsed from the date of bifurcation and constitution of the Committee till the date of the suit. The Court also held that the traders did not get any benefit merely because the Market Committee collects fee and spends a major portion of it towards establishment charges like paying salaries to its employees and maintaining the Office and that there is no quid pro quo.

( 6 ) THE Market Committee assails the validity of these findings andcontends that when once the notification under Section 4 (4) of the Andhra pradesh Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act (XVI of 1966) is issued, a market area is established and the traders are required (o take, a licence under Section 7 of the Act and pay market fee under Section 12 of the Act.

( 7 ) TO appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to refer to theprovisions of the Act. Under Section 3 (1) of the Act, the Government may publish in the manner prescribed the notification declaring their intention to regulate purchase and sale of such agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock in such area as may be specified in the Notification. After considering the objections, the Government may issue a Notification declaring the area specified in the draft