JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - These two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as they raise an identical controversy. The issue raised is whether Gur Lauta or Raskat are exigible to market-fee under the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam. 2. The petitioners are manufacturers or dealers in the aforesaid, commodity and are doing business within the market areas being regulated by the respective 'Mandi Samitis of Shahjahanpur and Bareilly. Their contention is that the aforesaid commodities are not agricultural produce as defined in S. 2(a) of the aforesaid Adhiniyam so as to attract the levy of market fee and, on that ground, they have prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent Mandi Samities from levying and collecting market fees on the commodities. It may be mentioned here that this commodity has been variously described as Gur Lauta, Lauta, Lautapari Gur or Raskat. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that these are various nomenclatures of the same commodity. 3. In order to determine the controversy it will be necessary to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions. The U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam (the 'Adhiniyam' for short) is an Act enacted for the regulation of sale and purchase of agricultural produce and for the establishment, superintendence and control of markets therefor. With a view to achieving these objects and where the State Government was of the opinion that it was necessary and expedient in the public interest to regulate the sale and purchase of any agricultural produce in any area, certain areas in the State have been notified in the gazette as market areas. The effect of declaration of an area as a market area is that no local body or other person can set up, establish or continue any place for the sale and purchase etc. except under and in accordance with the condition of a licence granted by the market samiti concerned. Various functions and duties of the market committee (Mandi Samiti) have been laid down under S. 16 of the Adhiniyam for the enforcement of the provisions thereof with a view to regulating the transactions of sale and purchase of specified agricultural produce in the market area. Under Section 17 Mandi Samities have been empowered to levy and collect market fees on the transactions of sale of specified agricultural produce in the market area. Under Section 17 Mandi Samities have been empowered to levy and collect market fees on the transactions of sale of specified agricultural produce in the market area. It is in the purported exercise of this power that the respondent Mandi Samities are levying and collecting the impugned market-fees. 4. Section 2(a) of the Adhiniyam, round which the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were mainly centred, provides : "2. Definitions - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context : (a) 'agricultural produce 'means such items of produce or agriculture, horticulture; viticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture, animal husbandry or forest as are specified in the Schedule, and includes admixture of two or more of such items, and also includes any such item in processed form, and further includes gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery." 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that Gurlauta or Raskat being neither a scheduled agricultural produce nor admixture of two or more scheduled items nor even the processed form of the same could not attract the levy of market-fee under the Adhiniyam. It was further urged that Gurlauta or Raskat does not fall even within the extended definition of the term 'agricultural produce' whereby Gur, Rab, Shakkar, Khandsari or jaggery have also been included within the definition of' agricultural produce'. 6. For the respondent Mandi Samitis, the argument was that Gurlauta or Raskat are but a processed form of sugarcane which is specified in the schedule to the Adhiniyam under S. 2(a). 7. Alternatively, it was urged that Gurlauta and Raskat are really Gur and hence included in the definition of 'agricultural produce' as S. 2(a) stands after its amendment by U.P. Act No. X of 1970. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are clearly of the opinion that Lauta or Raskat is not an agricultural produce as defined under the Adhiniyam and hence not leviable to market- fee. It was not disputed that neither Lauta nor Raskat is included in the Schedule containing the various items of agricultural produce which have been specified as such under S. 2(a). Learned counsel for the respondents also did not contend that gurlauta or Raskat can themselves be treated as sugarcane which is admittedly included in this schedule to S. 2(a) as item No. 14 among the miscellaneous items. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents also did not contend that gurlauta or Raskat can themselves be treated as sugarcane which is admittedly included in this schedule to S. 2(a) as item No. 14 among the miscellaneous items. 9. The question, therefore, which falls for determination is whether Lauta can be treated as a processed form of sugarcane. The words used in the statute are 'agricultural produce' means...... and also includes any such item in processed form. It will thus be seen that in order to fall within the extended meaning of the term 'agricultural produce' the commodity must not lose its basic identity though its form may have undergone some change so as to be described as the processed form of that particular item. Unless, therefore, it can be demonstrated that Lauta and Raskat are but the processed form of sugarcane they cannot attract the levy of market-fee. 10. We will, therefore, have to examine the precise nature of this substance. As is well known, Gur, Rab, Shakkar, Khandsari and jaggery are prepared out of sugarcane juice by boiling sugarcane juice to various levels of temperature and subjecting them to various processes, such as, neutralization of the acidity of the fresh juice, removal of all scum and addition of various substances, etc. The scum- free juice after it has acquired the given consistency crystallizes into jaggery and this crystallized syrup is solidified to make Gur. But while preparing Gur and Shakkar a certain residue or waste is left and the same is separated from the sugarcane juice and is known as molasses which is used in the manufacture of alcohol. Molasses when boiled is converted into a viscous liquid which, when cooled down, is converted into what is called Lauta or Raskat. While, therefore, Lauta can be described as the processed form of molasses because in the process of boiling and cooling, molasses merely undergoes a change of form but it does not lose its basic identity. Molasses themselves are really a bye-product which is separated from sugarcane juice while manufacturing Gur and Khandsari, etc., not retaining any of the elements or properties of the original agricultural produce, namely, sugarcane. Unlike Gur, Shakkar or Khandsari, etc. which retain in some way part of the characteristics of the original substance. Molasses themselves are really a bye-product which is separated from sugarcane juice while manufacturing Gur and Khandsari, etc., not retaining any of the elements or properties of the original agricultural produce, namely, sugarcane. Unlike Gur, Shakkar or Khandsari, etc. which retain in some way part of the characteristics of the original substance. namely, sugarcane juice, molasses are a product which is entirely distinct and different, both in the physical and chemical contents from sugarcane. As molasses do not have any of the properties or characteristics of sugarcane the same cannot be validly treated as the processed form of sugarcane. A fortiori Lauta or Raskat which are but a bye-product of molasses cannot legitimately be treated as processed form of sugarcane. Thus Gur Lauta or Raskat being neither a scheduled agricultural produce nor a processed form thereof. cannot validly attract the levy in question. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, placed reliance on a single Judge decision of this Court reported in Nanak Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1969 All LJ 352 in which it was held that Gur, Shakkar, Khandsari, etc. are not a substance which are different or distinct in their nature or character from the sugarcane juice and consequently the same were liable to be treated as agricultural produce within the meaning of S. 2(a). This decision was reversed in special appeal by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nanak Chand Kanhiya Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh in which after examining the true composition or character of gur, Shakkar, Khandsari, etc. it was held that these are new products which are entirely distinct and different from sugarcane and hence not exigible to market fee. This decision rendered on March 11, 1969 led to the amendment of the definition clause in question namely. 2(a) whereby words "and further includes gur, rab, shakkar, Khandsari and jaggery" were added with a view to putting an end to the controversy namely, whether Gur, Rab, Shakkar, etc., can be regarded as a processed form of sugarcane. Be that as it may, the decision cited by the Leamed counsel has no application to the present controversy which is wholly different. The issue with which we are concerned is whether Lauta or Raskat are processed form of sugarcane. 12. Be that as it may, the decision cited by the Leamed counsel has no application to the present controversy which is wholly different. The issue with which we are concerned is whether Lauta or Raskat are processed form of sugarcane. 12. In this connection learned counsel for the respondent Mandi Samiti also attempted to argue that the words "and also includes any uch item in processed form" in S. 2(a) must 'be read as also applying to Gur, Rab, Shakkar, Khandsari and jaggery, are, therefore the processed form of Gur, Rab, Shakkar, Khandsari and Jaggery-must also be held to fall within the definition of the term agricultural produce.' 13. The argument is completely devoid of any merit and has to be rejected for more than one reason. In the first place, having regard to the nature of the product, Lauta or Raskat cannot, for the reasons already stated hereinabove, be regarded as the processed form of Gur, Rab, Shakkar, Khandsari etc. In the second place, we cannot accept the submission save by straining the plain language of the statute beyond permissible limits by reading words which are not there. On a plain grammatical interpretation of the words, processed form' of only those items of agricultural produce are included within the ambit of S. 2(a) which are mentioned in the Schedule. Gur, Rab, Shakkar, Khandsari, etc. are not among the scheduled items and the words "and also includes any such item in processed form" appear in the statute before the words "Gur, Rab, Shakkar, Khandsari and jaggery". We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting this argument. 14. We then turn to the other ground on which learned counsel for the respondents sought to support the levy. The submission was that Lauta is nothing but Gur and hence leviable to market-fee under S. 2(a). The submission does not commend to us at all. From the mere fact that Lauta is also called Gurlauta or Lautapari Gur, it cannot be validly inferred that lauta or Raskat in spite of what their true character is, are 'Gur' as is commonly known in the market. Since the term 'Gur' has not been defined in the Act, it must be construed in the sense in which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing, namely, those dealing in the sale and purchase of agricultural produce, would attribute to it. Since the term 'Gur' has not been defined in the Act, it must be construed in the sense in which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing, namely, those dealing in the sale and purchase of agricultural produce, would attribute to it. This principle of construction is now too firmly established to require any elaboration. We will content ourselves by referring to a just few decisions. See Commr. of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh v. Taj Mahal Hotel, (1971) 82 ITR 44 at p. 47 : AIR 1972 SC 168 at p. 170, Porrits and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1979) 1 SCR 545 : AIR 1979 SC 300 . The same view was reiterated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court dt. Feb. 22, 1985 in Writ Petitions Nos. 1347-60 of 1981 : reported in 1985 All LJ 226, Messrs. Rathi Khandsari. Udyog etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Their Lordships observed : "In litigations pertaining to the world of business and commerce, the dictionary to refer to is the dictionary of the inhabitants of that world. What they understand by the term 'khandsari is precisely what that term means in the statute designed to regulate their dealings and transactions. The best test, therefore, is to ask the question what they themselves have understood by the term 'Khandsari, how they themselves have interpreted it, and on what basis they themselves have moulded their own conduct, for all these years." 15. Applying the aforesaid dictum, we have no hesitation in holding that Lauta or Raskat cannot, by any stretch, be regarded as Gur. Gur in the ordinary commercial parlance represents a commodity which is wholly distinct and different from molasses or Lauta. The clear assertion of the petitioners is that Lauta is not fit for human consumption and the same was used to feed the cattle. Gur, on the other hand, is a commodity which is eaten as such and is used besides as a sweetening agent in the preparation of various sweets. Lauta or Raskat have never been known as substitutes for Gur nor vice versa. Their properties and uses are distinct and different and we have found no basis for equating the two articles. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting this argument also. 16. In Writ Petition No. 14584 of 1983 an additional point was raised though not canvassed in the arguments. Their properties and uses are distinct and different and we have found no basis for equating the two articles. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting this argument also. 16. In Writ Petition No. 14584 of 1983 an additional point was raised though not canvassed in the arguments. The point raised was that the State Legislature was not competent to declare Khandsari and Gur as agricultural produce for the purpose of the Adhiniyam. Learned counsel, however, did not press this argument in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 1347-60 of 1981, 21-23 of 1982, 174 of 1982, 3178-3195 of 1982, 4527-32 of 1982, Messrs Rathi Khandsari Udyog v. State of U.P., reported in 1985 All LJ 226. 17. The above discussion disposes of the entire submissions raised in support of and opposition to these petitions. 18. In the premise, the petitions succeed and are allowed. The respondents are restrained from levying or realising licence or market-fee on the transactions of sale of Lauta or Lautapari Gur or Raskat from the petitioners. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.