JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - All the three petitioners, namely, Agra Roller Flour Mills, Mool, Chand Shiam Lal Roller Flour Mills and Shri Rameshwar G.D. Roller Flour Mills, own roller flour mills at Agra which are located within market area of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Agra. They purchase and manufacture wheat products. On 15th December, 1978, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Agra, issued notices demanding market fees in respect of the purchases made by the petitioners during the period September, 1976 to October, 1978 as follow: "From : (1) Agra Roller Flour Mill, Agra, Rs. 9,08,85,000.00/-. (Annexure 3' to the writ petition). (2) Mool Chand Shiam Lal Roller Flour Mills, Ratanpura, Agra. Rs. 3,45,825,00/- (Annexure 4' to the writ petition). (3) Shri Rameshwar G.D. Roller Flour Mill, Agra, Rs. 3,02,337.50 (Annexure 5' to the writ petition). The notices further mention that in case the market fee was not paid within three days, necessary legal proceedings would be initiated and the same would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The Mandi Samiti further issued reminders dated 28th December, 1978 to the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and dated 27th December, 1978 to the petitioner no. 3 threatening to realise the market fees demanded from them as arrears of land revenue (annexures 6, 7 and 8 to the writ petition). By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the right of the Mandi Samiti to recover the amount of market fees demanded from them under the aforementioned notices and pray that the same may be quashed and Mandi Samiti be restrained from recovering the amounts mentioned in the impugned notices from them. 2. Undisputed facts that emerge from the affidavits filed in this petition are that during the course of their business, the petitioners purchased wheat from the Food Corporation of India which on its own procures wheat from various sources including purchasing the same from producers in the district of Agra. Part of the purchases by the Food Corporation of India is also made in the market area of Krishi Utpandan Mandi Samiti, Agra. The wheat procured by the Food Corporation from various sources is stored in various godowns from where the same was issued to the petitioners during the months of September, 1976 to October, 1978. Part of the purchases by the Food Corporation of India is also made in the market area of Krishi Utpandan Mandi Samiti, Agra. The wheat procured by the Food Corporation from various sources is stored in various godowns from where the same was issued to the petitioners during the months of September, 1976 to October, 1978. The amount demanded relates to the payment of market fees in respect of the wheat purchased by the three petitioners from the Food Corporation of India during the aforementioned period only. It is also not disputed that both the Food Corporation of India and the petitioners are traders in the sense contemplated by U.P. Krishi Utpandan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The petitioners have questioned the right of Krishi Utpandan Mandi Samiti, Agra, to demand market fees in respect of the transactions of the nature involved in this case, inter alia, on the ground that in such circumstances collection of market fee from the petitioners is not justified by the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act. 3. Relevant portion of Section 17 of the Act which was amended by U.P. Act No. VII of 1978 and which amendment was retrospectively brought into effect from 12th June, 1973, runs thus: "17. Powers of the Committee - A Committee shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the power to - (i) & (ii) ..... ...... .... (iii) Levy and collect: (a ).... ..... .... .... Powers of the Committee - A Committee shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the power to - (i) & (ii) ..... ...... .... (iii) Levy and collect: (a ).... ..... .... .... (b) market fee, which shall be payable on transactions of sale of specified agricultural produce in the market area at such rates, being not less than one per centum and not more than one and half per centum of the price of the agricultural produce so sold, as the State Government may specify by notification, and such fee shall be realised in the following manner - (1) if the produce is sold through a commission agent, the commission agent may realise the market fee from the purchaser and shall be liable to pay the same to the Committee; (2) if the produce is purchased directly by a trader from a producer the trader shall be liable to pay the market fee to the Committee; (3) if the produce is purchased by a trader from another trader, the trader selling the produce may realise it from the purchaser and shall be liable to pay the market fee to the Committee; and (4) in any other case of sale of such produce, the purchaser shall be liable to the market fee to the Committee." A perusal of the aforesaid section shows that in cases falling in clauses (1) and (3) of Section 17 (iii) (b), the Act fixes the liability or obligation for payment of market fee on the seller and authorises such seller to pass on burden of the merket fees to the purchaser. In cases falling in clauses (2) and (4) of the aforementioned sub-sections, the Act makes the purchaser liable for payment of market fees. The Mandi Samiti can recover market fees only from such person on whom the liability to pay the same has been fixed by Section 17 (iii) (b) of the Act. Subclauses (1) and (2) cover cases where the produce is sold in the market area either through a commission agent or is purchased by a trader directly from a producer. The present case does not fall under either of these two clauses. The present case is covered by cl. Subclauses (1) and (2) cover cases where the produce is sold in the market area either through a commission agent or is purchased by a trader directly from a producer. The present case does not fall under either of these two clauses. The present case is covered by cl. (3) which provides for payment of market fees in a case where produce is purchased by a trader from any other trader which provides that in such a case, the liability for payment of market fees would be that of the selling trader who in his own turn may pass on the burden to the purchasing trader. The petitioners are the traders who have purchased the produce from the Food Corporation of India and as such the liability under clause (3) to Section 17 (iii) (b), for payment of market fees in respect of such transactions, could only be that of the Food Corporation of India and not of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Mandi Samiti relied upon clause (4) of Section 17 (iii) (b) which imposes the liability for payment of market fees on the purchaser but that clause applies to a case which is not covered by any of the first three sub-clauses of Section 17 (iii) (b). As we have come to the conclusion that this case is covered by Sub-clause (3), no question of fixing the liability for payment of market fees on the petitioner under Sub clause (4) arises. 5. We are accordingly of the opinion that the notices issued by the respondent no. 1 (Annexures 3 to 8 to the writ petition) to the petitioners are not authorised by anything contained in Section 17 (iii) (b) of the Act and are without authority of law. 6. As the petition succeeds on this short ground, it is not necessary for us to go into various other grounds raised by the petitioner in this petition for challenging the right of the Mandi Samiti to recover the impugned market fees from them. 7. The petition succeeds and is allowed with costs against respondent No. 1. Notices (Annexures 3 to 8 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 1 to the petitioners requiring them to pay the market fees mentioned therein are quashed and respondent no. 7. The petition succeeds and is allowed with costs against respondent No. 1. Notices (Annexures 3 to 8 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 1 to the petitioners requiring them to pay the market fees mentioned therein are quashed and respondent no. 1 is directed not to take any step to recover the market-fees mentioned in these notices from the petitioners.