Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding, directing and restraining the respondents from recovering the Mandi Fee/development charge/Cess from the petitioners on transportation, purchase and sale of manufactured product i.e., veneer.
(2.) The petitioner have their industries/factories for manufacturing Veneer. The text alongwith photograph showing manufacturing process of Veneer is appended as Annexure -1 to the writ petition.
(3.) The main stress is given by learned Counsel for the petitioners on the point that Veneer does not come within the definition of agriculture produce as defined under Sec. 2 (a) of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (herein after referred to as the Act); that it also does not fall within the definition of forest produce but in processed form 'wood'. The respondents are charging Mandi fee/Cess and other charges. They are insisting upon the petitioners to get themselves registered for payment of Mandi fee/development charge and Cess etc.; that Veneer does not have any characteristic of wood and the same is a new product having different commercial identity. Therefore, no mandi fee is chargeable on sale or purchase of manufactured goods 'Veneer, doors, chaukhat, buggi and different types of furniture. It is stated that Mandi fee/cess is payable only on an agricultural produce as specified for the purpose of levy of market fee, as mentioned in Schedule -A of the Mandi Samiti Act.;