1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners questioning the vires of Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 (referred to herein after as 'the Rules of 1963'). Prayer has also been made to quash the common order dated 16.3.2010 passed by the Director, Agricultural Produce Marketing Board, Jodhpur (referred to herein after as 'the Agricultural Board').

3. The common question arises in these writ applications, as such they are decided by this common order. Facts are being narrated from CWP No. 7715 of 2010 Arihant Udhyog. v. State of Raj. & Ors.

4. It is averred that the petitioner is a small scale industry for which permanent registration certificate has been issued by the Government of Rajasthan. It purchases Legume from outside the State of Rajasthan and by processing it in its premises by different scientific ways, it prepares various Dalls. On the connected matters commodity so purchased from outside the State of Rajasthan, Mandi Fee is also paid. The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (referred to herein after as 'the market committee') is constituted under the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (referred to herein after as 'the Act of 1961'). Rules have also been framed called the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963. The license has been issued by market committee under Section 14 of the Act of 1961 to the petitioner firm though it was not required to obtain such license. Under Section 17, the market committee is empowered to collect the market fees but only to the extent that the agricultural produce is bought and sold in the market area. Rule 58(4) is an exception to the general rule. Reference has also been made to Byelaws 16 and 17 providing for levy of market fees and the process of its collection. Byelaw 17(7) provides that if a licensee brings for sale or processing any agricultural produce, he shall have to furnish an information and shall have to deposit the market fees also. Notice to the said effect was also issued by the market committee. It is submitted that since the petitioner purchases the agricultural produce from outside the State for industrial purpose, the notification dated 27.4.2005 is not applicable to the industrial concerns like the petitioner. Rule 58(4) of the Rules of 1963 has been deleted. Earlier a writ application was filed. It was directed by this Court vide order dated 5.2.2009 that they should file representation to the Director of the Agricultural Board. Representation (Annex.8 to the writ application) was accordingly connected matters filed. Reply was also submitted. The Director has passed the impugned orders on 16.3.2010 holding that the petitioners are liable to make payment of market fees. Hence, the writ applications have been preferred.

5. The State of Rajasthan and Director of Agricultural Board in their return have contended that the market fees is required to be paid with respect to the notified agricultural produce under Section 17 of the Act of 1961. As per Section 14 of the Act of 1961, a trader is bound to obtain license and is under lawful obligation to make good the market fees. Rule 58(4) of the Rules of 1963 has been deleted with effect from 27.4.2005. The petitioners are liable to make payment of market fees on agricultural produce purchased from outside the State, even if the mandi fee in respect of that produce has also been paid by the petitioner outside the State. If the Cess is paid in any other market area of State, then the same can be exempted by virtue of Rule 58(1) of the Rules of 1963 but no such declaration has been filed by the petitioner stating therein that it has already paid or deposited cess in any other market committee of the State. As a consequence of deletion of Rule 58(4), the petitioner cannot claim any exemption of market fee on exported agricultural produce after deletion of the said provision. After deletion of Rule 58(4),