JUDGMENT

A. N. Varma, J. - The petitioners are challenging a notification, dated 9-2-1981 issued under Section 7(2)(b) of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam declaring that the wholesale transactions of certain agricultural produce shall be carried only within the principal market yard of the respondent - Samiti.

2. The first ground of challenge is that the paddy and rice being the essential commodities, the entire business connected therewith is controlled by the U.P. Rice and Paddy Levy Order, 1985 and U.P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1976 and promulgated under the Essential Commodities Act and consequently the impugned notification.

3. We cannot agree. An identical argument was considered at length in the case of M/s. Amrit Rice Mills, Pilibhil and others v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, reported in 1987 UPLBEC 394 by a Division Bench of this Court and repelled. We entirely agree with that decision and it is unnecessary to dilate on this point further.

4. The second contention was that the impugned notification cannot apply to the petitioners as they are carrying on their business from the premises of their mills which though within the market area are not located within the market yard and consequently the said notification cannot be applied to them as it has Amrit Rice Mills case (supra).

5. The allegation that the petitioners are not doing any business within the market yard has been emphatically denied by the respondent it its counter-affidavit. The assertion is that the petitioners are wholesalers and hold license therefor issued by Mandi Samiti. In the license their places of business are also mentioned according to which they are carrying the business within the market yard. The respondent-Mandi Srmiti has also asserted that it is levying market fees and applying the impugned notification only to those traders who are doing wholesale business within the market - yard. No doubt the petitioners have reiterated the allegations made in the petition but we have found no reason for preferring the version of facts put forward by the petitioners to that of the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti who have verified the counter-Affidavit. No mala fides or bias is alleged against the Secretary or at any rate established so as to justify the rejection of his version of facts. In this view. We cannot grant She reliefs prayed for in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent not to enforce the impugned notification against the petitioners as the respondent is enforcing the notification against those traders only who are carrying on business in the market yard. The second contention too must, therefore, be rejected. As regards the decision in the case of Amrit Rice Mills case (supra) and other decisions of this Court, following that decision, it may be mentioned that in those cases the admitted position was that the petitioners were carrying on their business only from their mill premises which were outside the market - yard a situation which was entirely different from that existing in the present case.

6. That take us to the third ground which was that the procedure prescribed under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act mandatory for declaration of market area was not followed in the instant case and consequently the impugned notification is liable to be struck down on this short ground.

7. The submission is devoid of any merit. The principal ground of challenge under this head was that the notifications under Sections 5 and 6 were not published as required by Rule 129 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Rules, 1965. There are more than one reasons for which this contention which must fail. The first is that the petitioners are seeking to raise a controversy which is basically one of fact, namely whether the notification under the aforesaid, provisions were published in the local newspapers and in the manner provided under Rule 129. The notification under Section 5(1) and (6) were issued in the year, 1972, i.e. more than 15 ye