A.P.CHOWDHRI, J.

1. The principal question which will largely decide the fate of these writ petitions is - as to the nature and degree of quid pro quo (one thing in return for another) between the fee realised and the cost of services rendered. In other words, whether quite a substantial portion of the amount of fee must be shown to be actually, distinctly and primarily spent for the benefit of the prayer or whether a broad and general correlationship between the fee and the services satisfied the crucial test.

2. The question stated above is common to a number of writ petition. For the sake of convenience, nine writ petitions Nos. 3923, 3924, 3925, 3926, 5542, 5543, 5544, 3760 of 1986 and 6328 of 1987, challenging the vires of market fee levied under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) are dealt with in Part I. Part II deals with CWP No. 2551 of 1988 relating to timber, Part III deals with CWP No. 121 of 1988 challenging the validity of the Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986 and CWP No. 821 of 1988 regarding the vires of the Punjab Rural Development Act, 1987.

3. CWP No. 3923 of 1986 and some connected writ petitions cam