K. B. N. Singh, C. J. In this writ application the three petitioners who are partnership and proprietorship firms, carrying on business within the Dalsinghsarai Police Station in the District of Samastipur have prayed for quashing three notices dated the 4th September 1975 issued by the Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur (Respondent No.3) rejecting their representations holding that the stalk of tobacco plants also falls within "tobacco" a scheduled article and asking them to obtain licence and start making payment of the market fees under the Bihar Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) 2. The short facts, necessary for the disposal of this application need be stated. The petitioner's case is that they purchase stalks of tobacco, grind them and sell the same after grinding as dust, to different buyers outside the State of Bihar and for carrying on the said business a whole-sale licence under the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the Rules framed thereunder has been granted to each of them by the licensing authorities concerned and the petitioners carryon the said business in accordance with the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, and under the supervision of the Central Excise Authorities. The Secretary of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dalsinghsarai (Respondent No.3) had been insisting on the petitioners for obtaining licences from the Market Committee for carrying on their aforesaid business, on the ground that stalks of tobacco plants are also one of the agriculture produce. The petitioners represented to the Market Committee that in the Schedule of the Act, only tobacco has been included as one of the agricultural produce for the purpose of the Act, and since the petitioners deal in stalks of tobacco plants and their dust and not tobacco they should not be compelled to obtain licence and subjected to various rigorous of the different provisions of the aforesaid representations. Respondent No.3 by the impugned notice dated the 4th September, 1975 (Annexure 1', 2' and 3') has directed the petitioners to obtain licence, as they are dealing in stalks of tobacco plants, which come under the scheduled article' tobacco as notified agricultural produce. 3. Respondent No.3 by the impugned notice dated the 4th September, 1975 (Annexure 1', 2' and 3') has directed the petitioners to obtain licence, as they are dealing in stalks of tobacco plants, which come under the scheduled article' tobacco as notified agricultural produce. 3. The petitioners contention is that the word "Tobacco" mentioned in the schedule of the Act, will only mean tobacco leaves either processed or unprocessed and in common parlance also it is understood in the same sense, and by no stretch of imagination tobacco stalk or its dust is tobacco and therefore, the direction issued by Respondent No.3 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of the argument, reliance has been placed on the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, to show that tobacco has been used to mean tobacco only and whereever necessary stalks have been referred to separately as stalks of tobacco as distinct from tobacco. Their grievance is that if they take out licence under Rule 71 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1962 they will have to abide by the provisions of the Act, and the said Rules, and the sale and purchase of tobacco stalks and dust will have to be made under the direction of the Market Committee by auction or tender as required under section 15 of the Act, and the Rules which in view of the conflicting provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, Is impossible of compliance. The petitioners have also stated that under the Central Excise Rules they have to purchase stalks of tobacco even by going to the authorised cultivators houses and therefore the cultivators of tobacco can never avail of the facilities of the Market Committee because under the Central Act, they can neither come to the market proper or the market yard or sub-yard for sale nor they can enjoy the so-caned facilities likely to be provided by the Market Committee. It is also averred that the impugned notices (Annexures 1, 2, and 3) are violative of Articles 19, 31 and 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Act, and the Rules and therefore are ultra vires and fit to be quashed. 4. Two counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4. Two counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in which it is stated that tobacco has been mentioned in the schedule of the Act, under the heading Narcotics which includes not only the leaves but the whole plant, including the stems and stalks of tobacco since the stalk and dust of tobacco plants contain narcotics. It is also asserted that under the Central Excise and Salt Act, as mentioned in the First Schedule to the said Act, tobacco means any from of tobacco whether cured or uncured and whether manufactured or not and include the leaf, stalks and stems of the tobacco plant. It is denied that there is any conflict between the Central Excise and Salt Act, and the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, in as much as under the said Act, the petitioners are required only to pay a levy of one per cent on the completed sale or purchase within the market area. It is also denied that the tobacco cultivators can never avail of the facilities of the Market Committee as the object of the Act, is to provide for better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the committee is providing various facilities and rendering service for the benefit of traders, agriculturists and the general public operating in the market area. It is also asserted that the provisions of the Act, are valid and the petitioners are obliged to take out licences. 5. The only contention raised by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners in this writ application is that the tobacco stems and stalks are not included in tobacco as mentioned in the Schedule of the Act. 6. The Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 under section 3 provides for levy and collection of duties on excisable goods other than salt, which are produced or manufactured in India, at the rates as set forth in the First Schedule to the said Act. Item No. 4 of the said First Schedule defines tobacco as follows, and excise duty is payable thereon as mentioned in the Schedule: "Tobacco means any form of tobacco whether cured or uncured and whether manufactured or not, and includes the leaf, stalks and stems of the tobacco plant, but does not include any part of a tobacco plant while still attached to the earth". Section 27 of the Act, provides for levy and collection of market fee on the agricultural produce bought in the market area at a rate not exceeding fifty paise per rupees one hundred worth of agricultural produce. “Agriculture produce” has been defined under clause (a) of section 2 (1) of the Act, as follows :- "Agricultural produce, includes all produce, whether processed of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry and forest specified in the schedule". The schedule of the Act, mentions various articles as notified agricultural produce. Item No. XI mentions "Narcotics". It is under this heading that tobacco is the lone item mentioned. The Legislature while using the expression tobacco must be deemed to be aware of the definition of the expression tobacco as given in the Central Excise and Salt Act, and as understood by the people dealing with excise laws in the matter and that must be deemed to be the accepted definition of tobacco as mentioned in the schedule of the Act. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners however, has submitted that tobacco stalk is not a "narcotic" only the tobacco leaf being a narcotic. Since the 'Tobacco' is mentioned in the schedule of the Act, under the heading 'Narcotics' only that part of tobacco which has narcotic contents will be deemed to be - 'tobacco' as a schedule article and not its stalks. Learned Counsel has submitted that as tobacco seed is not a narcotic so tobacco stalks also will not come under the purview of narcotics, He has further submitted that the assertion made in the Supplementary affidavit that the tobacco stalks do not have the property of narcotics has not been specifically denied on behalf of the respondents. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed on the 28th October, 1975, on behalf of the respondents in paragraphs 8 and 9 the statements made in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Supplementary Affidavit have been denied. In paragraph 9 of the said counter-affidavit it is stated that "the dust and stalks of the tobacco are narcotics, since the word tobacco includes the whole plant, including leaf, stalks and dust. “It cannot therefore, be said that this part of the assertion of the petitioners has not been denied. 9. In paragraph 9 of the said counter-affidavit it is stated that "the dust and stalks of the tobacco are narcotics, since the word tobacco includes the whole plant, including leaf, stalks and dust. “It cannot therefore, be said that this part of the assertion of the petitioners has not been denied. 9. According to the Chamber's Dictionary, the word 'narcotic' means (adj) producing stupor, sleep, or deadness, (noun) a medicine producing sleep or stupor." The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1955 Edition Volume 92 at page 263 states that :- "Tobacco is the name given to the plant and cured leaves of several species if Nicotiana which may be used immediately but commonly, after aging and processing in various ways, for the purpose of smoking, chewing snuffing and extraction of nicotine." It is true that the nature tobacco seed may not contain any nicotine but after the seed germinates nicotine appears due to chemical changes and other factors in the different parts of the plant. A reference in this connection is made to the Indian Tobacco. A Monograph, published by the Indian Central Tobacco Committee, Ministry of Food and Agriculture Government of India. At page 192 of the First Edition, it is mentioned as follows :- "While nicotine is the dominant alkaloid in both the cultivated species of tobacco viz…, N. tabacum and N. rustica, in a large portion of wild species nor-nicotine is dominant.... "The nature tobacco seed does not contain any nicotine but the nicotine appears soon after germination and is present thereafter in all parts of the leaf. It is synthesised by the roots and transported and deposited in the leaf (Dawson, 1942)." At page 203 in the paragraph dealing with 'Aircuring of Primed Leaves-Vs-Leaves on Stalk", it is mentioned. "When the leaves are attached to the plant in addition to purely internal transformations, important movements of material occur from leaves to stalk. Where the leaves are detached from the plant the chemical changes are due largely to internal transformations movements of materials, if any, being restricted to those between lamina and midrib." 10. While considering the question whether tobacco seeds are entitled to exemption under the head 'tobacco' or as its products, a Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Amara Purusottam Mamidi Obaih and Company and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others. While considering the question whether tobacco seeds are entitled to exemption under the head 'tobacco' or as its products, a Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Amara Purusottam Mamidi Obaih and Company and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others. (29 sales tax cases 654), observed as follows :- "The word tobacco therefore connotes the plant going by that name as a whole and not merely its leaves, as sought to be contended for the respondents. Roots, stems, stalks, flowers and seeds are as much parts of the plant as its leaves since a typical plant consists of all these parts and branches and fruits in addition." It has also observed therein that the seeds are also part of tobacco, so long as they are attached to the plant. 11. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that only leaves have narcotic contents and not the stalks of tobacco and stalks are not included in 'tobacco' as a scheduled article. In my considered opinion tobacco stalks come under the scheduled article, 'tobacco' and therefore the contention of the learned counsel that the tobacco stalk is not a schedule article and the petitioners are not obliged to take licences, has no substance. It may be mentioned that the vires of the Act, has not been challenged before us. 12. In the result, this writ application is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. I agree. Application dismissed.