( 1 ) THIS writ petition challenges the assessment of levy of market fee under the provisions of the krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and the order dated 13th October, 2004 passed by the director, Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow deciding revision filed against the order of market committee. Prayer has been made in the writ petition to quash the order dated 13th october, 2004 passed by the Director, Mandi Parishad and the demand order dated 19th October, 2004 as well as the order dated 30th December, 2000 passed by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi samiti, Ghaziabad. It has been prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents restraining them from demanding any market fee and development cess from the petitioner. A writ of mandamus has also been prayed commanding the respondent No. 2 to refund the petitioner the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- (deposited in cash by the petitioner and Rs. 83,19,804/- (submitted through bank guarantee) which has been demanded by the respondent No. 2 from the petitioner.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are: the petitioner is a registered company having its registered office at Chakala, Andheri (East), mumbai and various branch offices including one at Hyderabad and one at Ghaziabad. The petitioner has wholly owned subsidiary Company, namely, International Tobacco Company (hereinafter referred to as "intco" having cigarette manufacturing facility at Ghaziabad. The "intco" has been manufacturing cigarettes from 1969 on behalf of the petitioner under job work agreement. All raw materials and ingredients necessary for manufacturing are being supplied by the petitioner The Tobacco stocks are transferred by the petitioners office or go-down at Hyderabad and other location in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh to the petitioners office at Ghaziabad for handing over to "intco". The tobacco is being procured by the petitioner through the auction plat-forms in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka; a part of tobacco procured by the petitioner while in storage at Hyderabad is sold to the "intco" at Andhra pradesh for security for bank credit purpose and after some time is repurchased by the petitioner from "intco" at Hyderabad itself. The tobacco was notified specified agricultural produce under the Act on 23. 9. 1978 The Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ghaziabad (respondent No. 2 )sent notice to the petitioner on 17. 11. 1978 asking the petitioner to take licence under the Act. The petitioner took licence and has been submitting return from time to time showing only stock transfers. The demand notice dated 24. 3. 1983 was issued by the respondent No. 2 claiming that the petitioner is engaged in transaction of sale and purchase and liable to pay market fee. The notice was replied by the petitioner stating that no transaction of sale of the tobacco takes place in the market area of the respondent No. 2. It was stated that the petitioner supplies only raw materials to "intco" and the "intco" only does the job work for which it is paid charges. The krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti accepted the aforesaid reply of the petitioner and dropped the demand of market fee in January, 1990. Again notice was issued on 3. 2. 1990 which was replied reiterating the claim that no sale takes place in the market area. The matter was not pursued any further by the respondent No. 2. On 18. 7. 1999 again a notice was issued by the respondent No. 2 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the market fee be not levied on the turnover of the Company as disclosed in State Tax returns. Petitioner replied to the said notice, contesting the demand, reiterating its claim that there were no sale transaction but only job work is done by the "intco" on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 passed an order on 18th february, 2000 levying market fee and development cess on the valuation of what has been described by the petitioner as the purchase of raw tobacco made by the petitioner in A