JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, 1. This is an appeal filed by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Moth. It is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing a writ petition filed by the Town Area Committee Moth and directing the Appellant not to interfere with the recovery of weighment dues by the Town Area Committee. 2. The Town Area Committee alleged that eversince 1933, it was charging a tax called weighment dues from the traders conducting business in the market of the Town Area Committee under bye-law No. 8 prescribed by the Committee. In 1964 the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Adhiniyam was enacted. This Act contemplates of constitution of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti which has been charged with the duty of regulating the sale and purchase of agricultural produce in the market yards and market areas. The dealers in those areas cannot carry on business except under a licence issued by the Mandi Samiti. It was alleged that the Mandi Samiti of Moth which controls an area including the area within the limits of the Town Area Committee, Moth, issued directions to the traders not to charge anything from the sellers in excess of fifty paise per cent of the sale proceeds. It also prohibited grain dealers from paying any tax by Town Area Committee on transaction of sale and purchase of grain. It alleged that the Mandi Samiti had no authority to interfere with the levy or collection of the weighment dues by the Town Area Committee. 3. The learned Single Judge held that the levy of weighment dues by the Town Area Committee was in law imposition of a tax. Levy or recovery of such a tax is not barred by Section 10 of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam. The writ petition was allowed and the requisite direction was issued to the Mandi Samiti. Aggrieved the Mandi Samiti has come up in appeal before us. 4. In support of the appeal it was urged that the impugned levy of weighment dues was in law a fee and not a tax. It was within the purview of trade charges as defined in the Act. u/s 10 of the Act trade charges could not be lawfully levied or collected by any person except in accordance with the directions of the Mandi Samiti We are not impressed by this submission. It was within the purview of trade charges as defined in the Act. u/s 10 of the Act trade charges could not be lawfully levied or collected by any person except in accordance with the directions of the Mandi Samiti We are not impressed by this submission. Clause X of Section 2 defines a trade charge as follows: (x) "trade-charge" means any charge, by whatever name called, which is realised or may by realised by, or may be payable to, a trader in respect of any transaction of sale or purchase of any agricultural produce under or purporting to be under any custom or usage of trade or otherwise. Explanation--Every deduction other than a deduction made on account of deviation from sample when the purchase is made by sample, or on account of deviation from standard when the purchase is made by reference to a known standard, or on account of difference between actual and the standard weight or measure shall be deemed as a trade charge. It will be seen that a charge to be a trade charge must essentially be something which is realised by or paid to a trader. If some person charges a trader with the result that the trader is obliged to pay something, such a charge is outside the definition. The learned Counsel for the Appellant urged that the definition as given in the English version of the Act is at variance with the definition in the Hindi version; and a perusal of the Hindi version shows that the definition of trade charges includes charges from a trader. We may assume that is so; A Full Bench of this Court in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal (III) UP 1961 AWR 699 , has, however, ruled that in case of such a conflict the English version will prevail. We, therefore, cannot construe the English version in the light of the Hindi version. The English version on its face does not include charges which may be realised from or which may be payable by a trader to someone else. We, therefore, cannot construe the English version in the light of the Hindi version. The English version on its face does not include charges which may be realised from or which may be payable by a trader to someone else. The fact that there was no accidental error in the definition is corroborated by Rule 79(2) framed under this Act that the Market Committee shall specify in its bye-laws the trade charges that may be charged or realised by a trader or a commission agent or a broker or a weighman or a measurer or a palledar holding licence under these rules, but not exceeding the limits prescribed hereunder: (i) Commission--Re. 1.50 per cent (one and one half of one per centum). (ii) Borkerage--Re. 0.50 P. per cent (one half of one per centum). (iii) Weighment--Re. 0.10 P. per quintal (ten paise per quintal). (iv) Palledari--Re. 0.15 P. per quintal (fifteen paise per quintal). This rule does not contemplate or prohibit the making of a charge from a trader, commission agent etc. or that such a trader or commission agent can be held liable to pay such a charge to anyone else. 5. Section 10 regulates the levy of trade charges. Under it no person can levy a trade charge other than those prescribed by the rules or bye-laws and that all trade charges shall be payable by the purchaser. Since the levy with which we are concerned is not a levy which can be called "trade charge" as defined in the Act, Section 10 cannot possibly be attracted. So even if the impugned levy be in the eye of law a fee and not a tax, as held by the learned Single Judge, the Appellant's case will not improve, because it is a fee not prohibited by Section 10 or any other provision of the Act. In this view it is unnecessary to go into merits of the question whether the levy is a fee or a tax. We may, however, observe that a Bench in Sri Narain Vijai Narain v. Town Area Committee Chirgaon 1972 ALJ 268 has held that a Town Area Committee has authority to impose a tax either on the entry of goods as well as on the sale and purchase of goods within its territorial limits. We may, however, observe that a Bench in Sri Narain Vijai Narain v. Town Area Committee Chirgaon 1972 ALJ 268 has held that a Town Area Committee has authority to impose a tax either on the entry of goods as well as on the sale and purchase of goods within its territorial limits. Another Bench in Notified Area, Samthar v. Chetan Das Diwan Mal 1971 ALJ 227 had upheld the levy of a fee by a Notified Area Committee. These two decisions clearly settle that a Town Area Committee or a Notified Area Committee have constitutional authority to levy a fee or a tax. It cannot hence be said that the levy was intrinsically without the authority of law. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to Section 9 of the Act. We fail to see how this provision is attracted. u/s 9 the effect of declaration of a market area is that no person can set up, establish or continue any place for the sale-and purchase etc. of specified agricultural produce except in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by a Committee. No such problem arises here. The Town Area Committee only levied a charge called by it a tax. It has not either set up or instigated the setting up of any place of sale and purchase etc. of foodgrain without obtaining the licence from the mandi Committee. 7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant also referred to Section 17(3)(b) of the Act whereunder the mandi Committee is authorised to levy a market fee on transaction of sale or purchase in the market yards. It was urged that since the Committee can levy market fee, then no other local body can make such a levy in view of Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding any thing inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, custom, usage or agreement. There is no provision in this Act prohibiting any other local body from levying a fee on transaction upon which the Committee may charge a market fee. In the absence of any such provisions, it is difficult to hold that Section 17(3)(b) would be inconsistent with the provisions of Town Area Committee Act or the bye-laws. The Town Area Committee authorises the levy of a fee. In the absence of any such provisions, it is difficult to hold that Section 17(3)(b) would be inconsistent with the provisions of Town Area Committee Act or the bye-laws. The Town Area Committee authorises the levy of a fee. On this ground therefore, the Appellant cannot prevent the Town Area Committee from imposing this charge, specially when there is no evidence that the mandi committee has imposed Market fees. 8. In the result the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.