JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - By means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the validity of establishment of Mainpuri Market Area and also the validity of the enforcement of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and the levy and collection of market fees. 2. The State Government issued requisite notifications under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the Act) establishing market area, market yard and sub-market yard in the town of Mainpuri. A market committee known as Mandi Samiti has been constituted under the Adhiniyam to discharge functions and powers conferred on it by the Adhiniyam and the rules framed thereunder. No trader or producer is entitled to carry on transaction of sale or purchase in the specified agricultural produce except in accordance with the provisions contained in the Adhiniyam and the rules framed thereunder. Section 9 of the Adhiniyam lays down that after the declaration of the market area no person shall carry on business for sale, purchase, storage or weighment in specified agricultural produce except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by the Market Committee established under the Act Section 17 confers power on the Market Committee to grant licence and charge fee for the same. It further empowers the Committee to levy and collect fees in granting licence and market fees on transactions of sale or purchase of specified agricultural produce in the Principal Market Yard and Sub-Market Yard from such persons at such rates as may be prescribed. Rule 66 framed under the Adhiniyam prescribes the rate of market fee and laid down that it shall be payable by the seller. Rule 68 further lays down that the market fee shall be realised from the seller viz., the agricultural producer, but for the sake of convenience the market fee could be realised from the purchaser though he was entitled to charge the market fee from the seller. 3. The Adhiniyam was amended by the Presidents Act No. 13 of 1973. Section 9 of the Amending Act amended Section 17 (iii) (b). 3. The Adhiniyam was amended by the Presidents Act No. 13 of 1973. Section 9 of the Amending Act amended Section 17 (iii) (b). The amended section lays down that market fee shall be payable by purchasers on transactions of sale of specified agricultural produce in the Principal Market Yard or Sub-Market Yard at such rates being not less than one per centum and not more then one and a half per centum of the price of agricultural produce so sold as the State Government may specify by notification in the Gazette. It is noteworthy that under the unamended Section 17(iiii) (b) the market fee was payable by sellers on the transaction of sale of specified agricultural produce and thus in practice the agricultural producers who brought his agricultural produce in the principal market yard or sub-market yard for sale of the same was liable to pay market fees. But after the amendment, obligation to pay market fee has been placed on the purchaser and not on the agricultural producers. In pursuance of the amended section the State Government issued a notification on 24-9-1973 prescribing a uniform rate of market fee for all the Mandis of the State viz., one percentum on the price of specified agricultural produce. In view of this development and change in law the petitioners who carry on their business within the market area of Mainpuri were required to pay market fee on the transaction of purchase of agricultural produce. The petitioners have challenged the validity of imposition of market fee and realisation of the same from them. 4. The petitioners raised a number of pleas in the writ petition, some of them raised the question of violation of Article 14, but during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the plea of violation of Art. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners gave up the relief for quashing the notifications establishing market yard, market area or sub-market yard at Mainpuri. Thus the petitioners confined their challenge to the validity of imposition and collection of market fee from them in pursuance of the notification dated 24-9-1973. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the Market Committee of Mainpuri failed to render any service to the petitioners although it has collected large amount of money by way of licence as market fee. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the Market Committee of Mainpuri failed to render any service to the petitioners although it has collected large amount of money by way of licence as market fee. There is no co-relation between the amount of market fee realised and the services rendered by the respondent Market Committee. In considering the question of validity of levy and collection of market fee it is necessary to bear in mind that fee is different than tax. An authority to impose tax is not required to render any service to the persons from whom tax may be collected, but the fee by its very nature is imposed only for the purpose of rendering services to those on whom fee is levied. In Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirpur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282 , State of Maharashtra v. The Salvation Army Western India Territory, AIR 1975 SC 846 and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., AIR 1975 SC 2037 , the Supreme Court laid down that fee is a sort of return or consideration for services rendered, therefore quid pro quo is a necessary element of fee. There must be a co-relationship between the fee levied by an authority and the services rendered to the persons on whom fee is levied. If the fee fails to have co-relation with the services rendered to the person concerned, the element of quid pro quo cannot exist. In that event the imposition of fee would be illegal. The Legislature authorised the Market Committee to levy fee and not tax. The validity of levy and collection of market fee must therefore depend on the co-relationship between the amount of fee levied and the services rendered by the market committee to those on whom fee is levied. These principles must be kept in mind in considering the validity of the market fee. 6. Petitioners have clearly asserted in various paragraphs of the petition that the Market Committee of Mainpuri has collected a sum of about Rs. 10 lacs as market fee, but it has not rendered any service to the petitioners or to the agricultural producers during all these years, nor it intends to render any service to the petitioners. It is asserted that the petitioner No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as market fee, but it has not rendered any service to the petitioners or to the agricultural producers during all these years, nor it intends to render any service to the petitioners. It is asserted that the petitioner No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 52,500.00 towards market fee on the purchase of groundnuts between October 1973 to January 1974. Other petitioners have also paid large amounts towards market fee. But the respondent Market Committee has not rendered any facility to them or taken any steps to render any service to them. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the market committee but the affidavit is vague and cryptic. It does not contain any specific reply to the categorical allegations made by the petitioners. The affidavit does not refer to any service rendered by the market committee or which it may intend to render to the petitioners in future. The allegations made by the petitioners in this respect remain un-controverted. During the course of hearing a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the Mandi Samiti placing materials before the Court. The learned Standing Counsel placed strong reliance on the supplementary affidavit and the annexure filed along with it. He urged that the respondent Market Committee has been rendering service to the petitioners and it further intends to spend money on providing amenities to the petitioners. Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit contains details of income and expenditure of the Mandi Samiti, Mainpuri for the year 1974-75. On a perusal of the same, I find that the Mandi Samiti's income during the year 1973-74 was Rs. 72857.73, while in the year 1974-75 the income from the market fee was Rs. 5,11,113.74. The total income of the Committee from the licence fee and other income was Rs. 9,40,000.00. The entries contained in the expenditure side show that in the year 1973-74 no expenditure was incurred in providing any facility or rendering any service to the producers or purchasers in the market area. In the year 1947-75, however, a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 has been ear marked for providing facilities, but in the remarks column this sum appears to be ear marked for travelling allowance etc. Annexure 2 to the said affidavit is a chart showing the financial position of the Mandi Samiti. The chart appears to have been prepared for the purposes of this case. 15,000.00 has been ear marked for providing facilities, but in the remarks column this sum appears to be ear marked for travelling allowance etc. Annexure 2 to the said affidavit is a chart showing the financial position of the Mandi Samiti. The chart appears to have been prepared for the purposes of this case. The chart does not indicate the income derived by the respondent committee from levy of market fees, it contains an entry that in 1975-76 Mandi Samiti proposes to acquire an area of 68 acres of land and proposal for the same is pending. On a careful examination of Annexure 2, I do not find details of any expenditure which may have been incurred or which may be intended to be incurred towards providing any facility or amenity or rendering any service to the petitioners or to other persons on whom the levy of market fee is imposed. 7. Learned Standing Counsel then referred to Annexure 3 to the supplementary affidavit, and submitted that in the years 1973-74 and 1974-75, the respondent committee incurred expenses in rendering service to the producers. On a perusal of Annexure 3, I find that during the year 1973-74 a total sum of Rs. 27,114.44 and in the year 1974-75 a total sum of Rs. 17,185.32 was spent by the respondent committee on items like chowkidar, Shamiana, sweeper, electricity, Tahbazari and space for bullock cart and water pipe etc. Some of the items mentioned therein are not related with any service rendered to the petitioners or to other persons from whom market fee may have been realised. But even assuming that the figures mentioned in Annexure 3 can be taken into account in considering the co-relationship of fee with the services rendered by the Mandi Samiti, I find that the respondent Committee has miserably failed to place any material before the Court to show that it rendered any service to the petitioners or to others which may be commensurate with the fee realised by it. Learned counsel then referred to Annexure 4 which is a letter from Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad sanctioning the budgetary figures of the respondents committee for the year 1975-76. On a perusal of the same I find that it does not contain any item for providing any facility or rendering any service to the petitioners or to those class of persons on whom the fee is levied. On a perusal of the same I find that it does not contain any item for providing any facility or rendering any service to the petitioners or to those class of persons on whom the fee is levied. Reference was made to the proposal of acquiring land which would incur expenditure of Rs. 5 lacs. The statement does not show as to for what purpose the land is sought to be acquired. But even presuming that the said expenditure of 5 lacs of rupees can be taken into account, the total amount sought to be spent by the respondent samiti in the year 1975-76 comes to Rs. 7,43,000.00. This figure does not come into account of the income which the respondent committee may earn from the levy of market fee during this year. On the other hand I find that at the end of the year 1974-75, the respondent committee had a sum of Rs. 9,06,115.31 deposited towards its credit. In the year 1974-75, the respondent committee realised a sum of Rs. 5,11,113.74 as market fee. The same amount may reasonably be realised in the year 1975-76. If these figures are taken into account the position which emerges is that out of Rs. 15 lacs the Samiti has proposal for total expenditure of Rs. 7,43,000.00 out of which only a sum of Rs. 5 lacs is proposed to be spent on acquiring land. Annexure 4 does not contain any item of expenditure showing that Committee intends to render any facility to the purchasers or to the producers. 8. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Samiti, it is stated that the Committee proposes to construct market yard, platforms weigh bridge, godowns, streets, lanes, rest houses etc. cycle stand, parkings, electricity, trees, Bank, Post Offices and other facilities including Hospitals. Paragraph 30 of the supplementary counter affidavit does not place any material before the Court to support the averments contained therein. Niether any plan nor any budgetary figures have been placed before me. The respondent committee has been realising market fee since 1972 and it has collected a huge amount as market fee but it has failed to provide any facility during all these years. Niether any plan nor any budgetary figures have been placed before me. The respondent committee has been realising market fee since 1972 and it has collected a huge amount as market fee but it has failed to provide any facility during all these years. No doubt while considering the validity of fee the services if any intended to be rendered by the respondent committee should also be taken into account but the averments contained in paragraph 3-G are not based on any material or document. I am not prepared to accept the bald statement of the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti. The budgetary figures, as already discussed do not refer to any of the schemes as mentioned in paragraph 3-G of the affidavit nor any item of expenditure on these items is shown in the budgetary figures discussed earlier. Further the market yard and sub-market yard is situate within the town of Mainpuri. There is a Municipal Board constituted under the U.P. Municipalities Act which is entrusted with the duties and function of providing civic amenities to the residents, viz., construction of roads, laying down of pipeline, provision for electricity and construction of lanes, Hospitals and parks etc. A Mandi Samiti has no doubt power to undertake these activities also but before they are done the Samiti must consider whether these facilities are necessary for rendering service to those on whom fee is levied. 9. In Hindustan Machine Tools case, the Supreme Court considered the validity of fee levied by Gram Panchayat constituted under the State Act of Andhra Pradesh. The Hindustan Machine Tools Company which is a Government of India undertaking challenged the validity of levy of fees on the ground that the Panchayats do not render any service to the Company therefore no fee could be realised from the Company. On behalf of Panchayat it was contended that Gram Panchayat laid roads for providing access to new buildings and drainage and lights etc. which justified the levy of fee. The Supreme Court rejected the contention and observed : "One cannot take into account the sum total of the activities of a public body like a Gram Panchayat to seek justification for the fees imposed by it. The expenses incurred by a Gram Panchayat or a Municipality in discharging its obligatory functions are usually met by the imposition of a variety of taxes. The expenses incurred by a Gram Panchayat or a Municipality in discharging its obligatory functions are usually met by the imposition of a variety of taxes. For justifying the imposition of fees the public authority has to show what services are rendered or intended to be rendered individually to the particular person on whom the fee is imposed." The dictum laid down by the Supreme Court is clear that if imposition of fee is challenged and if the authority concerned fails to show the services rendered or intended to be rendered individually to the particular person on whom the fee is imposed, the imposition of fee would be invalid. Apart from what has been said above the respondent committee miserably failed to show that it has rendered service or intends to render send to the petitioners on whom the market fee has been imposed In this view of the matter the respondent committee is not entitled to levy or realise market fee from the petitioners. 10. Learned counsel placed reliance on the State of Maharashtra v. The Salvation Army, Western India Territory, AIR 1975 SC 846 , in support of his contention that since a considerable amount of money realised by way of market fee is intended to be spent on the development of market area, the levy of fee is valid I find no substance in the argument. The Supreme Court has laid down that if a public authority collects fee and if it is not able to spend the same on rendering service to the citizens, the rate of fee cannot be increased, instead it must be reduced so that the same may be commensurate with the expenses incurred by the Public Authority in rendering services to those on whom the fee is imposed. In the instant case rate of fee was 50 paise per rupee on the price of agricultural produce prior to 24-9-1973, but after the issue of the notification dated 24-9-1973 the rate of fee has been, increased even though the respondent Committee, had huge amount of fee in deposit with it. As already noted m the year 1973-74 the Committee realised a sum of Rs. 5,72,857.73 as market fee and again in 1974-75 it realised a sum of Rs. 5 lacs and odd. As already noted m the year 1973-74 the Committee realised a sum of Rs. 5,72,857.73 as market fee and again in 1974-75 it realised a sum of Rs. 5 lacs and odd. The Committee did not spend the money in rendering service to the petitioners or to any other person from whom the fee was realised. In that situation there was no justification for increasing the rate of fee as was done by the State Government. I am therefore of the opinion that the State Government acted illegally in increasing the rate of fee. 11. I, therefore, allow the petition and direct that the respondents shall not impose or collect any market fee from the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled to their costs.