M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to respondents and after hearing Counsel for parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a timber merchant at Vellore in North Arcot district of Tamil Nadu. He is aggrieved by the demand notices dt. 14. 8. 1978 and 28. 9. 1978 issued by the Secretary of the 2nd respondent-Market Committee. Haliyal in Uttar Kannada dist of karnataka State. The two notices are produced with the petition as Ex. A and B. Ex. A informs the petitioner that timber and bamboo had been declared as notified agricultural produce under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and as the petitioner had purchased the timber and bamboo within the jurisdiction of the market area of that committee he should take out a licence as required under the provisions of the act before operating in the marke-area either as buyer, seller, trader of or Commission Agent, etc. It is also required in the said notice to pay Market fee under S, 65 (2) of the Act. They have assessed the Market fee at rs. 198-00 and licence fee at Rs. 150-00 for the year 1977-78 and Rs. 165-00 for the year 1978-79, thus there is a total demand for Rs. 513-00. Ex.-B is the same, except that it is only a reminder. It is referred to as notice No. 2 demanding the same sums totalling to Rs. 513-00. As the petitioner did not comply with the two demand notices, he was prosecuted in the Court of the judicial Magistrate First Class, Haliyal under Ss. 117 and 122 of the Act, it is at that stage that the petitioner approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution inter-alia contend ing that he is not a trader in the market area of the 2nd respondent-Market committee and therefore, he is not required to take out a licence as he is a permanent resident of Tamil Nadu doing business at Vellore and further he being a casual buyer at the auctions held in the forest situated in the market area, he cannot be treated to be a person doing business in the market area. It is also contended that the purchase made of timber in 1977-78 and 1978-79 cannot be construed as agricultural produce, because timber by no stretch of imagination can be said to be agricultural produce as no cultivation as such takes place. In that circumstance, the prayer is for quashing the two demand notices and also the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, first Class, Haliyal, in C. C. No. 538/78. ( 3 ) THE contentions advanced by the petitioner are liable to be rejected. In the Act, by S. 2 (5), buyer or purchaser is denned to mean a person who buys or agrees to buy goods. By sub-sec. (18) of S. 2 of the Act 'market' is denned to mean any notified area declared or deemed to be declared as market yard or area under sub-sec. (2) of S. 6. Similarly, sub-sec. (4) qf S. 2. of the act defines 'seller' to mean a person who sells or agrees to sell goods, while sub sec. (48) of S. 2 of the Act defines a trader to mean a person who buys notified agricultural produce either for himself or as agent of one or more persons for the purpose of selling, processing, manufacturing or for any other purpose, except for the purpose of domestic consumption. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the area from which the timber was purchased at the auction held by the Forest Department fell within the declared market area of Haliyal. Therefore, admittedly, the petitioner did buy timber and bamboo in the market area of the 2nd respondent-Market Committee and clearly answers to the description of the definition of 'buyer' and 'trader' it is not in dispute that he bought the, timber and bamboo to carry on business at Vellore and not for his domestic consumption. Every trader, under the provisions of the Act, is required to take out licence to do business in the market area and even if it be occasional or casual; there is no distintion made between a resident-trader or buyer or non-residentr-trader or buyer in the scheme of the Act. If this is borne in mind, then the notice issued at Exs. A and B cannot be said to be either illlegal or unwarranted under the provisions of the Act. If this is borne in mind, then the notice issued at Exs. A and B cannot be said to be either illlegal or unwarranted under the provisions of the Act. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel that a, buyer is required to pay market fee in terms of sub-sec. (2) of S. 65 of the act. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel, however, submitted relying upon the decision of this court in the case of Marularadya v. Market Committee, Shimoga (1) and contended that there are no such services which have been rendered to him and he is not liable to pay any fee. Unfortunately, since the rendering of the said decision, numerous other decisions make it clear that fees are leviable for the services rendered. But this Court on more than one occasion has held the the mere fact of bringing together a seller and a buyer at a place is a service rendered by the Market Committee within its area. This argument also overlooks the fact that the petitioner has access to the forest by the roads maintained by the State Government and to transport that timber bought, on the roads from the Forest. The Act is a comprehensive Act to cover all the activities of the trade in agricultural produce within the market area and one cannot take a, single instance of a casual buyer as claimed by the petitioner and give him exemption from the operation of the Act. If that is done, then every buyer in the market area will claim to be a casual or occasional buyer and the very purpose of the Act for which the legslature has enacted the same would be defeated. However, by the amendment effected in 1978 a buyer is made liable to pay market fee for his purchase in the market area. Therefore, the argument that the timeber and bamboo were not bought in the market-yards has no relevance. Therefore, this argument also has to be rejerted. ( 6 ) IT was next contended that the timber and bamboo not being agricultural produce will not attract the provisions of the Act and therefore, Exs. A and B and the subsequent prosecution for not having obtained a licence must be held to be illegal. Sub-sec. Therefore, this argument also has to be rejerted. ( 6 ) IT was next contended that the timber and bamboo not being agricultural produce will not attract the provisions of the Act and therefore, Exs. A and B and the subsequent prosecution for not having obtained a licence must be held to be illegal. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 2 of the Act had defined Agricultural produce' so as to include (i) live-stock or poultry, (ii) all produce whether processed or not, of agriculture, animal husbandry, apiculture, horticulture, pisciculture, forest produce and (iii) any other produce declared by the State Government by notification to be agricultural produce for the purposes of his Act. So, even as the definition originally stood, timber and bamboo cannot be said not to be forest produce. This inclusive definition was abandoned by an amendment in 1980 to sub-clause (1) of S. 2 of the Act. By the said amendment, agricultural produce means the produce of goods specified in the schedule. However, we are not concerned with the amendment which was prospective in character. The transactions in question took place prior to 1980. Therefore, the original definition of forest produce is sufficient to bring the bamboo and timber within the ambit of the Act to be regulated. Therefore' even this contention is liable to be rejected. ( 7 ) UNDER sub-sec. (1) of S. 72 of the act the Market Committee is authorised to grant or refuse licence to traders, commission Agents, brokers, processors weighman, measurer, surveyor, warehouse-man or any other market functionary, who operates in the market area in order to give effect to the relevant regulatory measures of the Act. Sub-sec. (3) thereof provides for grant of temporary licence for a period not more than one month for a trader not ordinarily resident in the market area. From the combined reading of sub-secs. (1) and (3) of S. 72 of the Act, it is clear that the petitioner was bound to take out a licence under sub-sec (3) of S. 72 of the Act meant for a non-resident. Admittedly, he had not taken such a licence. Therefore, he is liable for prosecution under S. 117 of the Act for contravening the provisions of S. 8 of the Act. Admittedly, he had not taken such a licence. Therefore, he is liable for prosecution under S. 117 of the Act for contravening the provisions of S. 8 of the Act. In S. 8 of the Act, it is provided that no person shall, without, or otherwise than in conformity with the terms and conditions of, a licence granted by the Market Committee use in any place in the market area for the marketing of the notified agricultural produce or operate in the market area or in any market therein as a trad commission agent, broker, etc. , in relation to the marketing of the notified agricultural produce. The effect of Ss. 8 and 72 of the Act is, as already stated, that even a casual trader cannot operate in the market area without a licence and therefore attracts prosecution under S. 117 of the Act. ( 8 ) THUS viewed, the prosecution launched by the 2ind respondent-Market Committee cannot be said to be illegal nor it can be said that the magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the offence. Therefore, this contention in furtherance of the second prayer to quash the proceedings before the magistrate also must be rejected. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, the amount involved is a very small one and the petitioner appears to have acted under the bona fide mistaken impression that he is not required to obtain a licence being a stranger to Karnataka. ( 10 ) IN the result, if the petitioner pays the fee demanded and takes out a temporary licence for the two years for the relevant periods, on payment of such fee as has been fixed by the Market Committee, the Court is bound to take a lenient view of the matter and that defence is always open to the petitioner in the prosecution now pending before the Court of the Judicial magistrate First Class, Haliyal. ( 11 ) WITH this observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule issued earlier is discharged. ( 12 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .