B. L. Yadav, J.

1. (FOR self, S. D. AgarwaJa and A. P. Misra, JJ.)-Being of the opinion that there was conflict in Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar and Co. v. State of U. P., AIR 1980 SC 1124 and in I. T. C. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 1985 I. T. C. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 1985rnnt of U. P. FOR levy and collection of fee under Section 17 (iii) of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, (Act No. 25 of 1964), (FOR short the U. P. Act or Adhiniyam), by Market Committees, a Division Bench of this Court has referred this petition to the Larger Bench This is how this matter has come beFORe us. After hearing the learned counsel FOR the parties, the following questions emerge FOR our consideration : (1) Whether the provisions of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 in respect of levy and collection of fee under Section 17 (iii) of the Adhiniyam in so far as the same applies to tobacco was repugnant to the provisions of Tobacco Board Act, 1975 (Central Act No. 4 of 1975) ? If so, its effect ; and (2) Whether the law declared by a Constitution Bench or by a subsequent Division Bench of the Supreme Court is binding on the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution ?

2. The