JUDGMENT

Palok Basu, J. - This writ petition has been filed by :

1. M/s. Shajan Das Rice Factory,

2. M/s. Modern Rice Mills,

3. M/s. Navin Rice Industries,

4. M/s. Annapurna Rice & General Mills and the reliefs claimed may be categorised as under :

(a) Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit, be restrained from enforcing the provisions of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam (for short the Act hereafter).

(b) Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit, be commanded not to charge any market fee @ I% in market area Pilibhit and it be commanded to refund the market fee charged since 1972 along with up to date interest @ 18"/,, per annum.

(c) Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit, be commanded to comply with the High Court order dated 24.7.87 in Writ Petition No. 8319/1983 Wastiram v. State of U.P. before initiating coercive measures.

2. The petitioners and some other firms had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8319/1983, decided by Honble Mr. Justice K. C. Agarwal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Gulati on 27-4-1987 (24-7-1987 ?). One of the reliefs claimed therein was that since no service was being rendered by the Samiti, no market fee could be levied by it. It was held by the Division Bench that this question was dependent upon the disputed facts and could be resolved only in some other appropriate proceeding. The other relief claimed was that since the petitioners were manufacturing rice from out of paddy in the same Mandi area, no market fee could be realised and that the fee already realised should be refunded. It was directed by the Bench that an inquiry about the petitioners' claim for refund be made within a period of 3 months.

3. These very petitioners had again joined M/s. Amrit Rice Mills and some other firms in Civil Misc. Writ Petri. No. 1025/1986 : (reported in 1987 All U 1118), wherein notifications under S. 6 of the Adhiniyam was challenged. It was held by the Division Bench that since after the notification No.584/XII-8-104-76 dated April 11, 1978. points trying to judge the legality of notifications prior to that date carried little force and were unacceptable.

4. In the present petition the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. P. Agarwal again contends the following points :

No. 1 : The notifications under S. 5(I) of the Act were not published in the local news- paper hence no further action could be taken by the Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit, so as to impose and charge market fee.

No.. 2 : The notification u rider S. 6 dated 6- 2.1972 and notification under S. 7, dated 9-2- 72 were not published in the required manner.

No. 3 : The notification dated July 6, 1972 under S. 7(11)(b) of the Act fixing a place for carrying of wholesale transaction of specified agricultural produce was also bad and illegal, since the notifications creating market area and carving out market yard were illegal.

5. We have heard Sri S.P. Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Mandhyan learned counsel for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Pilibhit, though we are fully convinced that the relief claimed in the instant writ petition do not materially differ from the reliefs claimed in the two writ petitions mentioned above, yet Mr. Agarwal sought to argue this petition basically on 2 grounds which are detailed in his Rejoinder- Affidavit.

"No. 1 : The non-compliance of R. 129 read with notifications dated 14-9-67 have visited the civil consequences upon the petitioner. The cause of action of payment of market fee is recurring and continuous, the petitioners cannot be stopped to challenge the realisation of the market fee........"

"No. 2 : The petitioners are now challenging the very authority of Mandi Samiti. Pilibhit in the present writ petition for realisation and collection of any market fee from the petitioners........."

6. Some allegations have been made in the Supplementary Rejoinder-Affidavit about the non-publication of the notification under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act on the ground that they were not published in the local newspapers etc. Some correspondence and certificates