M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THESE two petitions coming up for orders, by consent of both the Counsel for parties, are taken up for hearing. ( 2 ) THE writ petitioners are registered traders holding licence as such, in the market area of Bellary under the karnataka Agricultural Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred tc as 'the Act'. They deal in foodgrains, pulses, dhalls and several other commodities. The Act purports to regulate the purchases and sales of agricultural produce in the market area, market-yard, market, sub-market or sub-market yard. ( 3 ) S 65 of the Act as it existed at the time of the filing of the petitions consisted of only Sec. 65 (2 ). Sub-Secs. (1) and (3) have been struck down by this Court, in separate proceedings. Since then Karnataka Ordinance No. 2 has been promulgated enhancing fee under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 65, to Rs. 20/ -. Even that is not strictly relevant for the purpose of these writ petitions. ( 4 ) THE petitioners' sole grievance in these writ petitions is that the respondent-Market committee, Bellary, had demanded market fee, by their letter dated 8-4-1979 (which is produced as ext-E to the petition in W. P. No. 4993 of 1979) at Rs. 1% in respect of the re-sale of all the imported items by the petitioners. ( 5 ) THE respondent-Market Committee has filed its objections conceding that having regard to the decision of this Court in Rajashekar's case (1) sellers fee is not liable to be charged on a sale by a trader in the market area, market or market yard. But, however, it has been contended for the Market committee that whether the goods in question are imported or purchased within the market area being purely a question of fact, the petitioners must be called upon to adduce evidence to the satisfaction of the market Committee that all the transactions of re-sale of grains, pulses, etc. But, however, it has been contended for the Market committee that whether the goods in question are imported or purchased within the market area being purely a question of fact, the petitioners must be called upon to adduce evidence to the satisfaction of the market Committee that all the transactions of re-sale of grains, pulses, etc. , are actually of imported produce from outside the market area and it is only on such satisfaction that the market Committee may not levy fee namely buyers fee if the goods are imported from outside the market area, For this purpose, Shri B. G. Sridharan, learned Counsel for the market Committee contends that the petitioners should be put on terms, before the relief asked for by them is granted, to submit the entire transactions for the scrutiny of the Market committee. ( 6 ) TO my mind, the terms indicated by Shri B. G. Sridharan, learned counsel for the Market Committee appear to be reasonable. The petitioners have to satisfy the Market Committee that produce or transactions relating thereto were not bought within the market area. In any event, the petitioners being Market functionaries, in terms of Secs. 81 and 82 of the Act, they are bound to assist the market Committee in the collection of such market fee as is leviable on the transactions which take place within the market area. 6. Having regard to these facts, the petitioners are bound to succeed in so far as it relates to the demand made under Exhibit-E by the Market Committee, for payment of sellers fee on the petitioners. Therefore, a writ of mandamus shall issue to the Market committee restraining it from enforcing exhibit-E against the writ petitioners. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, the petitioners shall submit to the Market Committee accounts in respect of all their transactions in the market area, to the scrutiny of the Committee, periodically and its will be open to the Market committee on such scrutiny to enforce all the provisions of the Act against the petitioners in accordance with law. ( 8 ) THE petitions are allowed as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .