JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - On November 10, 1964, the State Legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. According to its preamble this was an Act to provide for the regulation of sale and purchase of agricultural produce and for the establishment, superintendence and control of markets therefor in Uttar Pradesh. Section 6 of this Act authorised the State Government, to declare, by a notification in the gazette, the whole or any specified portion of any area where the sale and purchase of any agricultural produce is usually carried on, as a market area, in respect of such agricultural produce as may be specified. Under Section 9 the effect of such declaration inter alia is that no person can carry on business or work as a trader, broker, commission agent, warehouseman, weighman, palledar etc. in respect of any specified agricultural produce except under a licence obtained from the Committee. Section 12 deals with the establishment and incorporation of a Mandi Samiti for every market area. Section 16 prescribes the functions and duties of this Committee. The Committee is to ensure fair dealings between the producers and persons engaged in sale or purchase of specified agricultural produce and grade and standardise specified agricultural produce; ensure prompt payment to the producers; standardise and regularise trade charges, market practices and customary methods of sale and purchase of specified agricultural produce etc. Section 17 defines the powers of the Committee. Under sub-Clause (b) of Clause (iii) , the Committee has the power to levy and collect market fees on transactions of sale or purchase of specified agricultural produce from such persons and at such rates as may be prescribed. In view of Clause (n) of Section 2 "prescribe" means prescribed by the rules under this Act. Section 40 confers rule making power on the State Government. The State Government published the rules under this Act by a notification dated 9th July, 1965.. R. 66 provided that the Market Committee shall have the power to levy and collect fees on the specified agricultural produce brought and sold in the Market Yards. The market fee shall be payable by the seller. The State Government published the rules under this Act by a notification dated 9th July, 1965.. R. 66 provided that the Market Committee shall have the power to levy and collect fees on the specified agricultural produce brought and sold in the Market Yards. The market fee shall be payable by the seller. Under Rule 68 if the specified agricultural produce is sold through the commission agent or directly to the trader, the commission agent or the trader is to charge the market fee from the seller and deposit the amount so realised with the Market Committee in cash. Such commission agents or traders are licensed under the Act. Rule 71 provides that if any condition of the rules or the bye-laws or the licence is contravened, the Market Committee could suspend or cancel the licence. 2. On 27th October, 1965, the State Government issued a notification declaring 'the Mandi of Muradnagar as a market area in relation to Gur, Rab, Shakkar: peas and wheat and its mixtures, with effect horn 15th February, 1966. 3. The petitioners are licensed dealers carrying on business in the market yard of Muradnagar Mandi in district Meerut. The Mandi Samiti required the petitioners to collect and pay the Mandi fees, on transactions of sale or purchase of Gur, Shakkar and Rab. The petitioners appear to have acquiesced and paid the market fee, but on 18th September, 1968, they served on the Mandi Samiti a notice stating that Gur, Rab, Shakkar etc. are not agricultural produce. Hence the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, is not applicable to these commodities. No tax under that Act is, therefore, leviable on transactions elating to these commodities. It required the Samiti not to realise the tax. The Mandi Samiti took the view that these commodities were agricultural produce and were expressly specified by the Government by its notification dated 27th October, 1965. The market fee was, therefore, payable in' relation to these commodities. 4. The only question raised by the petitioners is that Gur, Shankkar, Rab or jaggery are not agricultural produce within the meaning of the Act, and no market fee is payable therefor. The respondents raised a preliminary objection. It was urged that under the Act and the Rules the market fee is payable by the sellers. 'The petitioners are dealers. They do not have to pay the fee from their own pocket. The respondents raised a preliminary objection. It was urged that under the Act and the Rules the market fee is payable by the sellers. 'The petitioners are dealers. They do not have to pay the fee from their own pocket. They are not in any way affected by the levy of this fee. They, therefore, are not aggrieved persons and thus are not entitled to maintain the writ petition. I am unable to accept this submission. 1 he rules make the trader or the commission agent liable to collect and deposit the market fee. If he does not do so, his licence is liable to be suspended or can-relied. He is,, therefore, directly involved in the levy and collection of the fee and is also liable to suffer if the market fee is not collected or deposited by him. He can, therefore, feel aggrieved at the levy of this fee. The petitioners are, in my opinion, aggrieved persons and can legitimately raise this question before this Court. 5. Clause (a) of Section 2 defines "agricultural produce" to mean all or any of the produce of agricultural, horticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture, animal husbandry, and of forest, whether processed or not. For the petitioners it was urged that Gur, Rab, Shakkar etc. is not the produce of agriculture etc. because it is made after the sugarcane undergoes a manufacturing process. Manufacture is in law distinct and different from mere proceeding. Sugarcane is an agricultural produce, but Gur, Rab etc., is not a direct derivative from it. Sugarcane undergoes a material and significant constitutional change in the process of manufacture of Gur, Rab etc., Cur Rab, etc., is a commodity different in nature than sugarcane or sugarcane juice. It is known and understood as a different commodity than sugarcane in the commercial world. Hence it cannot be treated as an agricultural produce within the meaning of the Act. 6. For the petitioners it was stressed that the definition clause of agricultural produce includes a processed produce. In law processing cannot be equated with manufacture. For this reliance was placed upon the Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, A.I.R. 1963 SC 791. There it was urged that in the course of manufacturing vegetable products from raw mate-rials non-essential vegetable oils are produced at intermediate stages. In law processing cannot be equated with manufacture. For this reliance was placed upon the Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, A.I.R. 1963 SC 791. There it was urged that in the course of manufacturing vegetable products from raw mate-rials non-essential vegetable oils are produced at intermediate stages. As soon as that stage reaches, non-essential vegetable oils will be deemed to have been manufactured, because the process of their manufacture is then complete. This argument was negatived by the Supreme Court. It was observed:- "To say this is to equate 'processing' to manufacture and for this we can find no warrant in law. The word 'manufacture' used as a verb is generally under-stood to mean as bringing into existence a new substance and does not mean merely to produce some change in a substance." 7. Manufacture implies a change. Every change is the result of treatment on labour and manipulation, but for manufacture something more is necessary; there must be transformation, whereby a new and different article emerges. In other words it may be said that if an article is so facilitate treated that the resultant is different in removed its nature, character and identity, the be treatment would properly be manufacture and not mere processing. The test would be whether the end product is so distinct as to be a new substance in form or nature. The question is as to what exactly happens to sugarcane when Rab, Shakkar etc. are made from it. The petition states that sugarcane is pressed and its juice extracted. The juice is boil- ed in five pans one after another. Every time in cleansing chemicals are used. Thereafter it becomes an altogether different product. The counter affidavit, however, asserts that Gur, Rab, Shakkar etc. are all products of sugarcane juice after slight processing which retain the original characteristics of sugarcane. They do not become a different produce. It has also been stated that the sugarcane juice is not boiled in several pans one after another. Mostly a single pan is used in villages. 8. In the "Handbook of Agriculture" published by the Indian Counsel of Agricultural Research, New Delhi (1961 Edition) the process of milling and jaggery making has been mentioned at page 180. According to it the sugarcane is crushed in iron crushers to extract its juice. The juice is then boiled. Mostly a single pan is used in villages. 8. In the "Handbook of Agriculture" published by the Indian Counsel of Agricultural Research, New Delhi (1961 Edition) the process of milling and jaggery making has been mentioned at page 180. According to it the sugarcane is crushed in iron crushers to extract its juice. The juice is then boiled. The acidity of fresh juice is neutralised with a thin suspension of lime. Removal of all scum is necessary to improve colour and quality of jaggery. The addition of milk, white of eggs, mucilaginous extract of Bhendi (Hibiscus esculent's) roots and stems, and Castor and groundnut seeds crushed to a milky liquid facilitates such formation. The 'strike' stage is 1180 to 1200C, when the juice acquires a string-like consistency and readily crystallizes into jaggery. At this stage, the syrup is transferred into wooden or other moulds of different shapes. The process of making Gur, Rab, Jaggery etc. is only to boil the sugarcane juice to a particular degree of heat. The acidity of fresh juice is neutralised. Some materials are added to the juice in order to facilitate some formation which has to be removed. The scum free juice after it has acquired the given consistency crystallizes into Jaggery. This crystallised syrup is solidified to make Gur. 9. This procedure does not really involve the use of any chemicals in order to produce a change in the constitution of the sugarcane. The sugarcane juice does not lose its identity. It is cleaned, crystallized and solidified. In my opinion it cannot be said that this procedure involves the creation of a substance which is entirely distinct in its nature or character from the sugarcane juice. The sugarcane juice is not transformed into anything which may be a new element or material physically or chemically, I would not say that the procedure for making Gur. etc. involves manufacture. It is a merely lab-rim treatment and manipulation of sugarcane juice, which produces some change in the substance. It does not bring into existence a new substance. The procedure would, in my opinion, be processing and not manufacture. Gur, Rab, Shakkar etc. would hence be agricultural produce within the meaning of the Act and would be governed by its provisions. 10. For the petitioners reliance was placed upon Sardar Jogendra Singh v. Sales Tax Officer, 1966 ALJ 262. It does not bring into existence a new substance. The procedure would, in my opinion, be processing and not manufacture. Gur, Rab, Shakkar etc. would hence be agricultural produce within the meaning of the Act and would be governed by its provisions. 10. For the petitioners reliance was placed upon Sardar Jogendra Singh v. Sales Tax Officer, 1966 ALJ 262. In that case the question was whether Rab can be said to be an agricultural produce grown by a person within the meaning of proviso to Section 2 (i) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. There the question was not whether Rab was an agricultural produce simplicitor, but whether it was such a produce grown by a person on land. Jagdish Sahai, J. put the question requiring consideration as follows :- "If Rab is to be exempted from the purview of the 'turnover' it can only be on the ground that it has been grown by the appellants or has been grown on any land in which the appellants have an interest. The proviso would apply only under that condition." 11. The question was then answered as follows:- "In our judgment however it cannot be said that Rab is grown." 12. It was observed that Rab is not a direct produce from land but involves manufacturing process. The sugarcane is pressed and its juice extracted. This juice is boiled in five pans one after the other, every time some cleansing chemicals being used. Ultimately a semi-solid commodity is produced called Rab. The word "grown" connotes something coming out of soil, as for example, a tree, a sugarcane plant or paddy or wheat crop. It was held that Rab could not be treated to have been grown from land. For the petitioners great reliance was placed upon the observation that Rab involves a manufacturing process. In that case the Bench was not considering the question whether the production of Rab is manufacture as distinct from processing. It used the phrase "manufacturing process" merely to distinguish it from the process of growing something from land. That case is, therefore, distinguishable on facts and cannot be treated as an authority for the proposition that Rab involves manufacturing and not processing. For the respondents reliance was placed upon several cases which have taken a different view of the phrase" "agricultural produce grown on land". In R.B.N.S. Borawake v. State of Bombay, 1960 Vol. That case is, therefore, distinguishable on facts and cannot be treated as an authority for the proposition that Rab involves manufacturing and not processing. For the respondents reliance was placed upon several cases which have taken a different view of the phrase" "agricultural produce grown on land". In R.B.N.S. Borawake v. State of Bombay, 1960 Vol. 11 STC 8, Shah, J. speaking for the Bench held that an agricultural produce grown by a person is not required by the Sales Tax Act to be sold in the form in which it has been grown. An agriculturist who sells agricultural produce grown in his own land and with a view to prevent deterioration and for the purpose of facilitating transportation, converts sugarcane grown by him into Gur, would also be within the exception. 13. In the State of Madras v. R. Sarvana Pillai, 1956 Vol 7 STC 541, the Madras High Court held that where any agricultural or hoticultural produce has to be subjected to a minimum processing before that produce can be marketed at all, it will still retain its character as agricultural or horticultural produce despite that minimum processing and could well be an agricultural produce grown by the seller. Similar .view was taken in N. Deviah Gowder v. Commercial Tax Officer, 1962 Vol. 13 STC 422. In my opinion all these cases are distinguishable from the present case on the same grounds as were applicable to Sardar Jogendra Singh's easel mentioned above. They have no direct bearing on the question arising in the present petition. 14. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners being without merits, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.