S.K.JHA, J.

1. In this application under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ/order/direction quashing the communication dated 25-9-76 from the Director Marketing, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna, (respondent No. 2). A copy of the impugned communication has been marked Annexure-2 to the writ application.

2. The facts are uncontroverted. On the materials on the record the established facts are that petitioners 1, 2 and 3 are the partnership firms owning Dal mills and petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 are the respective partners of the aforesaid firms. The petitioners are carrying on milling business in pulses within the local limits of the Barh Agricultural Produce Market Area. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Barh, through its Secretary, has been impleaded as respondent No. 3. The petitioners are all licensees under the provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967, as well as under those of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1960, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder.

3. The petitioners purchase whole pulses (Dalhan), inter alia, from the market area concerned and after processing the same into split Dal they sell the same. In Para. 4 of the petition it has been asserted that the respondent market committee through its Secretary under the threat of penalty, seizure of stocks and books of account, and prosecution, is realising market fee from the petitioners firms on the purchase of whole pulses (Dalhan) as well as on sale of pulses processed by them, which means the split pulses and after the Dalhan has been processed. On 28-8-75 the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 along with some other firms of the area in question filed an application before the Chairman of the Market Committee objecting to the realisation of market fee on the whole grains as well as split pulses produced out of whole grains. The matter was heard of length several times by the Chairman but no final decision was given in the matter and the Secretary of the Committee (respondent No. 3) was regularly realising market fee on both whole grains and split grains. Under these circumstances an application was filed on 31-8-76 by the Secretary, Vanijya Parishad, Barh, on behalf of the Dal Mill owners of the area, including the petitioner firms, before the Chairman of the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna, requesting him to clarify the legal position as to whether market fee is payable both on whole grains as well as on split grains. A copy of the application has been marked Annexure-1. In response thereto by the impugned letter dated 25-9-76 (Annexure-2) respondent No. 2 wrote back saying "if notified agricultural produce like Arhar, Gram, Paddy, Khesari, Masur and oil seeds are purchased within the market area and are processed and even if it is sold in the same market area, market fee is payable on both the points.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that in view of the provisions of S.27(3) of the Act read with S.2(a) thereof and item 2 of the Sch. II appended to the Act, the whole pulses or the whole grains in question once having been subjected to market fee under the Act could not be so subjected to twice over in the same market area on account of the clear inhibition given in Sec. 27(3) of the Act. That at once necessitates a reference to the relevant provisions of S.27 of the Act. S.27, which is the charging Section, lays down in Sub-S. (1) that the market committee shall levy and collect market fees on the agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area at a certain rate. Sub-Sec. (2) enjoins that the market fee chargeable under Sub-Sec. (1) shall be payable by the buyer, in the manner prescribed, by the Rules. Sub-Sec. (3), which is the most relevant for our purpose in the instant case, runs thus :-

"The fee chargeable under Sub-S. (1) shall not be levied more than once on a notified agricultural