K.N.Goyal, J. - (1.) In these writ petitions two questions have been raised, First that Khandsari sugar is similar to sugar produced by the miles and is not an agricultural produce which could be subjected to market fee under the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam. Second is that the additional market fee levied under an Ordinance which has since expired cannot be realised because the additional market fee and market fee being similar in character there is no justification for levy of additional market fee and Section 17 of the Adhiniyam fixes a ceiling on the rate of market fee.
(2.) So far as the first point is concerned the matter is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Writ petitions Nos. 1347-60 of 1981, 21-23 of 1982, 1974 of 1982, 3178-3195 of 1982,4527-32 of 1982 etc., etc. M/s. Ralhi Khandsari Udyog etc. v. State of U. P. and others, etc. etc., decision on 22-2-1985. It has been held by their Lordships that Khandsari sugar is different from sugar and it is an agricultural produce and further that no discrimination is involved in levying market fee on Khandsari sugar while not levying any such fee on mill-produced sugar.
(3.) So far as the second point is concerned there can be no question of inconsistency between the Act and the Ordinance under Article 213 of the Constitution an Ordinance has the same effect as an Act of the Legislature. It is not a piece of subordinate legislation. As such both stand together and both have to be reconciled and enforced. Although market fee and additional market fee may be identical in character it was open to the Legislature to increase the rate of levy through an ordinance by calling it an additional fee. It has also been contended that there was no justification for levy of additional market fee because the funds with the Mandi Samities were sufficient for meeting their expenses. The writ petitions do not contain any sufficient factual material in this regard. The Mandi Samities are still in the process of expansion of their activities and it cannot be said that there is no scope of expansion or imprisonment of services. In the absence of any sufficient material to show that the levy is excessive it cannot be held that the additional market fee is in the nature of a tax and not a fee.;