Short Note : 1. The petitioners were wholesale grain, dealers. They carried on their trade within the area of Krishi Upaj Mandi Chhindwara. The petitioner's grievance was that the Market Committee had been demanding market fees from them under section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 when they bring notified agricultural produce for sale even before there is any sale within the market area. Held : Under sub-section (1) of section 19, the Market Committee is entitled to levy fees on notified agricultural produce "brought for sale or bought or sold in the market area". Sub-section (2) of section 19, however, provides that the market fees shall be payable by the buyer of the notified agricultural produce. Under the proviso to this sub-section, the person who may have brought the produce for sale in the market area can be made liable only when the buyer of the produce cannot be identified. There is some apparent conflict between sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 19. However, reading the two sub-sections together, it appears that the act of mere bringing the notified agricultural produce for sale within the market area does not entitle the Market Committee to levy market fees. Market fees can be levied only when there is sale within the market area. The market fees are payable primarily by the buyer. It is only when the buyer is not identifiable that the person who brings the produce for sale in the market area can be made liable. It is only by this construction that the two sub-sections can be reconciled. The 1973 Act repealed the 1960 Act which was on the same subject. Rules were framed under the earlier Act. Rule 56(2) of those rules provided that the fees shall be payable by the seller and buyer of notified agricultural produce in equal proportion. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the Court's attention to Bye law 51 (2). According to this bye law, which was framed under the old Act, the market committee could levy fees at the time of entry of the notified agricultural produce within the market area. This Bye law is inconsistent with section 19(2) of the 1973 Act. This Bye law therefore cannot be enforced. Galla Tilhan Vyapari Sangh, Satna and another v. State of M.P. and others, M. P. No. 231 of 1974 decided on 7-2-1975, relied on. This Bye law is inconsistent with section 19(2) of the 1973 Act. This Bye law therefore cannot be enforced. Galla Tilhan Vyapari Sangh, Satna and another v. State of M.P. and others, M. P. No. 231 of 1974 decided on 7-2-1975, relied on. Petition allowed.