Aftab Alam, J.

1. The petitioners sold certain quantities of Rice (Petitioner No. 1,11,695.79 quintals, Petitioner No. 2,7193.57 quintals and Petitioner No. 3,7072.22 quintals) to the Food Corporation of India in the year 1997-98 @ Rs. 708.20 paise per quintal. It is not denied that though market fee was leviable on the sales of rice by the petitioners, the amounts of fee were not paid to the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Natwar, Rohtas within whose area the sales took place. The Market Committee has now passed the assessment order, dated 27-3-2000 (Annexure-2) demanding from the three petitioners the market fees payable on the sales of rice made by them.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the demand. The petitioners challenge the demand not on the ground that no market fee was leviable on the sales in question but on the plea that the fee demanded by the Market Committee was not payable by them. On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that under the relevant provisions of the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 the liability to pay market fee lies with the buyer and normally, the petitioners would have collected the amounts of market fee from the Corporation (the buyer) on the respective sales made by them but they did not do so in view of a direction by the State Government that the payment of market fees on the sales in question would be made by the Corporation. Thus denying their own liability the petitioners seek a direction from this Court restraining the Market Committee from realising from them the market fees payable on the sales of rice to the Corporation. Alternatively, they seek a direction to the Corporation to pay the full amount of market fees payable on its purchase of rice from the three petitioners.

3. The petitioners case against the Market Committee is completely misconceived. The plea that they did not collect the market fees leviable on the sales from the buyer, the Corporation, in view of a Government decision is wholly untenable. The Market Committee is bound to levy and realise market fees in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. A Government direction, even if there was any such direction, would not in any way affect the enforcibility of the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

4. sec. 27 of the Act provides for the levy of fee and so far as relevant for the present it is as follows:

"27. Power to levy fees.--(1) The Market Committee shall levy and collect market fees on the agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area at the rate of rupee one per Rs. 100 worth of agricultural produce."

Explanation--xx xx xx xx

(2) The market fee chargeable under Sub-sec. (1) shall be payable by the buyer, in the manner prescribed.

(3) xx xx xx xx

Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 27 provides that the market fee would be payable by the buyer but its payment is to be made in the manner prescribed under the Rules.

5. Rule 82 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1975 sets out the scheme for levy and collection of fee. In so far as relevant for the present the rule is reproduced below:

(i) The Market Committee shall levy and collect market fee, on agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area at the rate of Re. 1 per Rs. 100 worth of agricultural produce.

(ii) If the buyer is a licensee, he shall within a week of the purchase, deposit the market fee, with the Market Committee.

(iii) If the seller is a licensee and buyer is not a licensee, the seller shall realise the market fee from the buyer and shall within a week deposit the same with the Market Committee.

(iv) If neither the buyer nor the seller is a licensee, the buyer shall deposit the market fee with the Market Committee or to its authorised officer or to staff or any person authorised by the Market Committee.

(v) to (xiii) - xx xx xx

6. It is an admitted position that each of the petitioners is a Licensee and the Corporation, the buyer is not a licensee under the Act. Hence, the sales