V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. One National Traders, which is the 11th respondent in the writ appeal, filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 33206 of 2012, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from enforcing the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1987 and the Rules made thereunder, by any Market Committee in respect of the purchase of any notified agricultural produce effected outside the notified market area and sold inside or outside the market area as per the Government Gazette in G.O. Ms. No. 3 dated 4.1.2003. The claim of National Traders in its writ petition W.P. No. 33206 of 2012 was that it was carrying on the trade of sale of wheat, rice, pulses etc., purchased both from inside and outside the notified area as raw material and that the Local Market Committee was not entitled to levy market fees and launch prosecution for non payment of fees, in terms of the power conferred under Section 24(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1987 and in terms of Rules 32 and 33 of the Rules.

2. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge, by an order dated 19.12.2012, on the basis of a previous order dated 18.11.2006 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 30016 of 2003.

3. The order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 30016 of 2003 on 18.11.2006 which was extracted by the learned Judge in his order dated 19.12.2012 passed in W.P. No. 33206 of 2012 reads as follows:

"The writ petition is preferred by the petitioners for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from enforcing the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 and the Rules made thereunder or bye-laws of any Marketing Committee in respect of purchase of any notified agricultural produce effected outside the 'notified market area' and sold inside or outside the market area.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in many cases, though 'notified area' has been notified under Section 4, but 'notified market area' has not been notified under sub-section (2) to Section 6 of the Act. According to him, the agricultural produce which is not grown or cultivated in the area and are brought from outside or outside the 'notified area' and are sold inside or outside the 'notified market area', therein, the market fee cannot be charged. It was further submitted that in many of the cases, the agricultural produce is brought from area outside the 'notified area', but is neither purchased nor sold in the 'notified market area' and for that, no demand for market fee can be made by the authorities.

3. It appears that the aforesaid facts have already been brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Agricultural Department by the petitioner as back as March/May 2003, but no specific decision has been taken therein and in the absence of any purchase or sale of one or other agricultural produce made by one or other petitioners, within or outside the 'notified market area', it is not possible for this Court to give a finding in one or other way with regard to demand stated to have been made from the second petitioner or any one or other member of the first petitioner-Association. In such circumstances, no relief can be granted as sought for in the present writ petition.

4. However, if no notification has been issued under Sub-Section (2) to Section 6 of the Act notifying any one or other 'notified market area' and the petitioner-Association or any of its member is in a position to show that particular agricultural produce has neither been purchased nor sold within the 'notified area', and having been brought from outside, has only been exported to some place outside the 'notified area', then in that case, the members of the first petitioner/Association may bring the same to the notice of the competent authority and claim for relief as may be entitled to under Se