JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition filed by M/s. Rama Kant Radha Govind Gandhiganj, Shahjahanpur and others, raises the question oi validity of collecting market fee on the sale of Lauta or Gur Lauta Pan from the petitioners. 2 The petitioners are manufacturers of Lauta and Gur Lauta. They are carrying on their business in Shahjahanpur. The petitioners have described the process of manufacturing Gur Lauta in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the writ petition which is prepared out of the molasses after boiling the same. According to the petitioners since Gur Louta is not agricultural produce as defined in Section 2 (a) of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam and is also not included in the list mentioned in the schedule, hence no market fee could be levied on that. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the concerned Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti of Shahjahanpur and the allegations made in the writ petition have been denied The contention of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti is that Gur Lauta is nothing else but Gur and, therefore, it is an agricultural produce within meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Act and as such is liable to imposition of fee under the Act. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This controversy came up for decision before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 14614 of 1983 M/s. Heera Lal Ayodhya Prasad v. State of U.P., decided on 25th April 1985. The Bench took the view that Gur Lauta is not agricultural produce and on that basis held that no fee could be imposed either on Gur Lauta or Gur Lauta Pari. We respectfully agree with the view taken in this case and consequently allow the writ petition. 5. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are restrained from levying or realising the licence or market fee on the transaction of sale of Lauta or Lauta Pari Gur or Rashket from the petitioners. The parties shall bear their own costs. 6. A copy of this judgment may be given to petitioners' counsel on payment of the usual charges within three days.