JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - On 12th Feb. 1983 Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Meerut issued notices to the petitioners, who deal in sale and purchase of `Dal' in the District of Meerut, requiring them to deposit the market fees in respect of the transactions entered into by them with effect from 20-1-1982. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the three petitioners question the right of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Meerut, respondent No. 2, to realise market fees from them, and pray that the said notices be quashed. 2. The right of the Samiti to realise market fees in respect of the transactions of sale and purchase of agricultural produce is governed by the provisions contained in the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). S. 2 (a) defines `agricultural produce' as meaning such items of produce of agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture, animal husbandry or forest as are specified in the Schedule including admixture of two or more of such items, as also such items in processed form. The Schedule referred to in S. 2 (a) inter alia specifies gram, peas, arhar, Urad, Moong, Masoor, Lobia (seed), Soyabean, Khesari, Sanai (seed), Dhaincha (seed), Gaur, Moth and Kulthi as produce of agriculture under group Legume. S. 5 of the Adhiniyam lays down that where the State Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest to regulate the sale and purchase of any agricultural produce in any area and for that purpose to declare that area as a Market Area, it may by notification in the Gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed, declare its intention so to do, and invite objections against the proposed declaration. It is not disputed that in the year 1978 the State Government published a declaration of the nature contemplated by S. 5 of the Adhiniyam for the purpose of declaring the Nagar Palika limits of Meerut as market area, inter alia, for the purpose of regulating the sale and purchase of legumes mentioned in the Schedule. It is not disputed that in the year 1978 the State Government published a declaration of the nature contemplated by S. 5 of the Adhiniyam for the purpose of declaring the Nagar Palika limits of Meerut as market area, inter alia, for the purpose of regulating the sale and purchase of legumes mentioned in the Schedule. Subsequently it also issued a notification under S. 6 which runs thus: "On the expiry of the period referred to in S. 5, the State Government shall consider the objections received within the said period and may thereupon declare, by notification in the Gazette, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, that the whole or any specified portion of the area mentioned in the notification under S. 5 shall be the Market Area in respect of such agricultural produce, and with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration." declaring the Nagar Palika limits of Meerut as Market Area in respect of such legumes. 3. S. 4-A of the Adhiniyam enables the State Government to, by notification in the Gazette, add to, amend or omit any of the items of agricultural produce specified in the Schedule and provides that when such a notification is issued, the Schedule shall stand amended accordingly. S. 8 (1) (a) further enables the State Government to, where it considers necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, include any agricultural produce in, or exclude any agricultural produce from the list of agricultural produce specified in the notification under S. 6. The proviso added to the sub-section, however, makes it obligatory upon the State Government to, before making any such alteration, invite and consider, in the prescribed manner, objections, if any, against the proposed action. 4. After Meerut had been declared to be market area in respect of legumes specified in the schedule, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Meerut wanted to realise market fees from various traders in respect of Dal obtained by splitting of such legumes. 4. After Meerut had been declared to be market area in respect of legumes specified in the schedule, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Meerut wanted to realise market fees from various traders in respect of Dal obtained by splitting of such legumes. Various traders then filed writ petitions in this Court questioning the right of various Mandi Samitis to realise market fees from them in respect of transactions in Dal, inter alia, on the ground that in absence of any specification of Dal's obtained from Legumes, in the Schedule it was neither open to the State Government to declare any area as market are in respect thereof nor was any area so declared. Accordingly, the Mandi Samiti had no jurisdiction to realise from them any market fees in respect of transactions concerning Dal. 5. While those petitions were pending in this Court, the State Government in exercise of its powers under S. 4-A of the Adhiniyam issued a notification in the Gazette, dated 20th of Jan, 1982 amending the Schedule in so far as produce falling in the group of `Legumes' was concerned. By means of this notification, the existing items of leguhttes mentioned in the Schedule were substituted by following items : 1. Gram (whole and Split) (Saboot our Dala hua) 2. Peas (whole and split) 3. Arhar (whole and split) 4. Urad (whole and split) 5. Moong (whole and split) 6. Masoor (whole and split) 7. Lobia (seed) (whole and split) 8. Soyabean 9. Khesari (whole and split) 10. Sanai (seed) 11. Dhaincha (seed) 12. Guar. 13. Moth and (whole and split) 14. Kurthi. 6. The writ petitions filed by various traders along with Writ Petri. No. 13494 of 1981 M/s. Janta Rice and General Mills Khatima, District Nainital v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and other connected cases came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court, which considered the controversy in regard to Dal in its judgment dated 28th of Jan., 1983 and observed thus : "Daal In petitions filed by manufacturer of Daal it is not necessary to decide if the Mandi Samitis are rendering any service as the submission made by the petitioners that it is not a specified agricultural produce appears to be well founded. 7. In the Schedule of specified agricultural produce gram, pea, and Arhar etc. are mentioned under group Legume. In Dr. 7. In the Schedule of specified agricultural produce gram, pea, and Arhar etc. are mentioned under group Legume. In Dr. Bulkis English to Hindi dictionary the meaning of the word Legume is given as `Do phali'. It is not disputed that whole gram, Arhar, pea etc. are Legume. The controversy is whether split daal can also be considered to be legume. According to learned counsel for Mandi Samitis daal is nothing but processed Arhar or gram. Whole daal and broken or split daal (Arhar ki daal are one and the same thing). Learned counsel urged that petitioners in splitting Arhar or other whole grain only process it and as agricultural produce under sub- sec. (a) of S. 2 of the Act means such item, even in processed form the petitioners who are manufacturers of Arhar were liable to pay fee under S. 17 (iii) (b) on sale of daal. Reliance was placed on U. P. Atta Chakki Vyavasai Sangh, Varanasi v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (1976 U.P. T. C. 322, 323) where it was held that grinding of wheat and converting the same into flour was process of milling, therefore, attracted levy. Support was also sought to be drawn from Ashok Industries v. State of Bihar (AIR 1979 Patna 217). 8. We are doubtful if the submission of learned counsel for Mandi Samitis can be accepted as Arhar and Arhar ki daal are not one and the same thing either commercially or popularly. But we do not propose to examine it as in our opinion, the Government itself dispelled the doubt when it treated whole and split daal as two different commodities vide Notification No. 3848 dated 20th Jan., 1982. Gram, pea. Arhar etc., were substituted by new entry which reads whole and split Daal. For instance the entry of Arhar now reads Arhar Saboot and Dali Hui. In other words whole and split daal, both have become specified agricultural produce from Jan., 1982. Ratio of paddy and rice laid down in Ram Chandra's case (supra) (citation not referred to earlier) however, may apply after this date and not prior to it. We do not agree with Sri Mandhyan that the notification was issued by way of abundant caution. Ratio of paddy and rice laid down in Ram Chandra's case (supra) (citation not referred to earlier) however, may apply after this date and not prior to it. We do not agree with Sri Mandhyan that the notification was issued by way of abundant caution. It substitutes the items mentioned in the Schedule from the date of notification." Portions of the observations underlined by us indicate that the Bench took the view that for the purposes of Adhiniyam legumes mentioned in the Schedule were to be treated as commodities different from Dal made out of them and the concerned Dal could not be treated as an agricultural produce in respect of which a declaration under S. 6 of the Adhiniyam was or could be made and as such the market committee had no jurisdiction to charge market fees in respect of transactions in Dal. 9. Since, however, the Bench in the case had observed, "whole and split Dal both had become specified agricultural produce from Jan., 1982", respondent Mandi Samiti took the stand that the High Court had ruled that with effect from Jan., 1982 it had become entitled to realise market fees in respect of transactions in Daal as well and issued the impugned notices to the petitioners accordingly. 10. It may be pointed out that the expression `specified agricultural produce' has been defined in S. 2 (t) as meaning agricultural produce specified in the notification under S. 6 or as modified under S. 8 of the Adhiniyam. It is not in controversy before us that the State Government did not, after issuing the notification under S. 6 of the Adhiniyam in the year 1978, issue any notification under S. 8 of the Adhiniyam modifying the said notification whereby Meerut had been declared as Market Area in respect of various agricultural produces including legumes of the types described in the Schedule as it then stood. As already indicated in M/s. Janta Rice and General Mills, Khatima case (supra) the Bench took the view that having regard to the nature of entries in the Schedule as they stood prior to Jan., 1982, it could not be said that specification of various legumes therein embraced within its ambit Daals made out of such legumes as well. As already indicated in M/s. Janta Rice and General Mills, Khatima case (supra) the Bench took the view that having regard to the nature of entries in the Schedule as they stood prior to Jan., 1982, it could not be said that specification of various legumes therein embraced within its ambit Daals made out of such legumes as well. In the context, the observation made by the Bench that whole and split Dal's have become specified agricultural produce from Jan., 1982 merely meant that since Jan., 1982 both the articles are such which stand specified in the Schedule. Consequently it has now become open to the State Government to include either or both of them in the declarations which it may make under Ss. 6 and 8 of the Adhiniyam. They cannot be interpreted as meaning that such dal becomes specified agricultural produce in the sense that they became so specified in various notifications under S. 6 of the Adhiniyam already issued by the State Government. 11. It, therefore, follows that the notification under S. 6 declaring Meerut as Market Area in respect of various items of agricultural produce issued in the year 1978 did not declare Meerut as Market Area in respect of Dal made out of the legumes specified therein. The respondents do not claim that any notification under S. 8 of the Adhiniyam amending the list of agricultural produce by including Dal's obtained from the legumes in respect of which declaration under S. 6 of the Adhiniyam was made, has yet been issued. The position, therefore, is that neither is there a declaration under S. 6 declaring Meerut as Market Area in respect of Dal's obtained from the legumes specified in the Schedule, nor is there any notification under S. 8 of the Adhiniyam including such Dal's in the list of agricultural produce contained in the notification already issued under S. 6 of the Adhiniyam. Thus Meerut has yet not been declared to be a Market Area in respect of such Dal's and the Market Committee has no jurisdiction to realise any market fee in respect thereof. 12. Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that in the notification under S. 6 issued in the year 1978, Meerut had been created as a Market Area in respect 'of various legumes mentioned in the Schedule. 12. Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that in the notification under S. 6 issued in the year 1978, Meerut had been created as a Market Area in respect 'of various legumes mentioned in the Schedule. The notification published on 20th of Jan., 1982 merely clarified the position that the said legumes meant both whole as well as split legume (Dal). The effect of the amendment made in the Schedule in the month of Jan., 1982 was that reference in the notification issued under S. 6 in the year 1978, to various legumes specified therein had to be taken as reference both to the whole legume as also to the Dal made out of it. Accordingly, t was not necessary for the State Government to issue any fresh notification under S. 8 of the Adhiniyam in respect of Dais made out of such legumes. According to him, the necessity to issue a notification under S. 8 (1) (a) arises only when it is proposed either to include or exclude any agricultural produce from the list of the agricultural produce specified in the notification under S.6 of the Adhiniyam. Such a notification under S. 8 of the Adhiniyam is not necessary where it is merely proposed to amend the list of an agricultural produce mentioned in a notification issued under S. 6. For this purpose, he placed reliance on S. 4-A of the Adhiniyam which enables the State Government to, by means of a notification, add to, amend or omit any of the items of agricultural produce specified in the Schedule. 13. We are unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Mandhyan. As already indicated, when the notification under S. 6 of the Adhiniyam declaring the district of Meerut as Market Area was made, it was neither open to the State Government to declare the same as Market Area in respect of Dal made out of the legumes specified in the Schedule nor did it do so. Such Dal's could be brought in the list of the agricultural produce in respect of which the Market Area had been declared only by exercising the powers to include the same in such list after affording an opportunity to traders to file their objections and considering the same, in accordance with the provisions contained in S. 8 of the Adhiniyam. The result of accepting Mr. The result of accepting Mr. Mandhyan's argument would be to include a new agricultural produce in the list of agricultural produce for which a particular area has been declared to be a Market Area under S. 6 of the Adhiniyam, without complying with the provisions contained in S. 8 of the Adhiniyam. S. 4-A of the Adhiniyam merely enables the State Government to add to, amend or omit any of the items of agricultural produce specified in the Schedule. But then any amendment whereby a new agricultural produce is introduced in the Schedule cannot be considered as resulting in the newly brought in agricultural produce, ipso facto and in contravention of the provisions contained in S. 8, becoming a part of a notification already issued under S. 6 of the Adhiniyam. 14. In the result, we are clearly of opinion that even though Dal's obtained from various legumes now stand specified in the Schedule as agricultural produce and in respect whereof the provisions contained in Ss. 6 and 8 of the Adhiniyam can be invoked, but when as no such jurisdiction has yet been exercised, in respect of Meerut the same cannot be treated to have been declared to be a Market Area in respect of such `Dal'. The Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Meerut, therefore, has no jurisdiction to demand from the petitioners market fees in respect of transactions in `Dal.' 15. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed with' costs. The demand raised by respondent No. 2 by their notices requiring the petitioners to pay market fees in respect of transactions in `Dal' of various legumes is quashed. 16. While we were delivering the judgment in the case, Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, invoked the provisions of Article 134A of the Constitution and prayed for a certificate that the case involves substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Having heard counsel for the parties, we are not satisfied that the point which we have decided in this case is such which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. The prayer for certificate under Article 134-A of the Constitution is accordingly rejected.