- (1.) The sole question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner, a Limited Company, engaged in the business of manufacture of katechu from Khair wood, is liable to pay market fee to the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (briefly the Samiti') respondent No. 1 on the purchase of Khair wood from the U.P. Forest Corporation, respondent No. 2.
(2.) It is indisputed that Khair wood, which is a raw material for the manufacture of katechu, is purchased by the petitioner from various Depots of the U.P. Forest Corporation, respondent No. 2. After manufacturing katechu from the Khair wood, purchased from the Forest Corporation, the petitioner sells out the finished product, i.e., katechu.
(3.) . In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is averred that the Samiti does not render any service to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot levy any market fee. In short, the contention is that fee can be realised only when there is quid pro quo and that when no services are rendered by the Samiti, no fee can be charged from the petitioner. It is, further, contended in paragraphs 15 and 28 of the writ petition that if at all the Samiti is entitled to levy market fee, that can be charged from the Forest Corporation, which is a selling trader, and not from the petitioner which is a purchasing trader. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner in short is that the petitioner is engaged in ordinary course of business in the purchases of the raw material, i.e., Khair wood, for the manufacture of katechu and therefore, is a 'trader' within the meaning of Section 2(y) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') and that as the Khair wood, which is nothing but a forest produce, is purchased by the petitioner a purchasing trader, from the Forest Corporation a selling trader; the latter being the trader, selling the forest produce, shall be liable to pay the market fee to the Samiti under Section 17(iii)(b)(3) of the Act.;