F.M. REIS, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2. The above petition inter-alia seeks a declaration that the Explanation to Rule 32(1) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1969 is ultra vires the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 as extended and applicable in the State of Goa and is ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India. It is further prayed that it be declared that the Copra is not a notified Agricultural Produce within the meaning of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (herein after referred to as “the Act of 1963”). It is also prayed that it be declared that the first petitioner is neither a trader nor a processor and is not required to obtain a licence under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. It is further prayed that the letters dated 30-7-2001, 6-8-2001, 10-8-2001 and 21-8-2001 (Exhibits Z, HH, II, JJ, KK, LL, MM3, MM4 and MM6) be quashed and set aside. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the withdrawal and cancellation of the said letters issued by the respondent No. 1 dated 30-7-2001, 6-8-2001, 10-8-2001 and 21-8-2001 (Exhibits Z, HH, II, JJ, KK, LL, MM3, MM4 and MM6) and also for refund of the amount paid by the petitioners.

3. Briefly, it is the contention of the petitioners that on 19-6-1968 the Central Government extended the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act, 1963 to Goa and coconut was declared as a specified commodity on 23-4-1969. The petitioners started manufacturing coconut oil at its factory at Khandepar, Ponda and consequently, placed orders for copra from the dealers in Tamilnadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh somewhere on 23-10-1997. The Calicut Office of the petitioners has placed the orders for such copra. Thereafter, the payment vouchers were immediately dispatched by Mumbai Head Office to its Calicut Office to be given to the suppliers which were paid before the consignment actually reached at Goa. The copra was weighed in Goa only for ascertaining the quantity and until October, 1998 the petitioners’ company used to purchase copra exclusively from outside the State. It is further the contention of the petitioners that on 24-10-1997 the Market Supervisor (Ponda) issued a notice to the petitioners stating that the petitioners are dealing with agricultural notified commodity viz., in coconuts. The notice further alleged that the trading by the petitioners in declaring agricultural produce without holding a valid licence amounts to a contravention of section 6 of the Act of 1963. The petitioners were directed to obtain a licence under section 6 of the Act of 1963. Thereafter, the secretary of the Goa Agricultural Produce Committee issued a notice to the petitioners alleging that the petitioners are dealing in coconut copra as notified commodity and importing large quantities from outside the market area since October, 1997 without holding a valid licence. Thereafter, the application was submitted by the petitioners to the Administrator requesting him to issue a processor licence for the marketing year 1997-98 and the agreement was also executed in standard form with that regard. Subsequently, an application was filed by the petitioners for grant of ‘A’ class processor licence on 4-2-1999. On 27-7-1999 the Secretary, GAPMC, issued a notice to the petitioners alleging that they had purchased coconut copra from the establishment at Quepem without a licence. The petitioners replied to such notice stating that the petitioners are holding a processor licence and engaged in processing activity in Goa and called upon the said Secretary to withdraw such notice. Thereafter, on 29-9-1999 the petitioners had applied for a Trader Licence f