JUDGMENT K. C. Agrawal, J. - This petition has been filed by three firms of three different places. There places are ; (i) M/s. Shanker Industries, Village Harisinghpur, Kotdwar. (ii) M/s. Himalayan Industries, Village Kudrya, Kotdwar. (iii) M/s. Prakash Udyog, Village Kashirampur, Kotdwar. They have been dealing in the foodgrains, which has been declared as agricultural produce under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam. 2. Under Section 7, the State Government is empowered by Notification in the Gazette declared such portion of the Market area as may be specified as the principal Market Yard. Kotdwar was declared as the principal Market Yard. The villages where the petitioners were carrying on their business. Were not included by the Initial notification in the Principal Market Yard. Subsequently, a notification was issued in 1971 including the aforesaid three Villages in the Principal Market Yard, Kotdwar. 3. The first point raised by the petitioners is that there was no power conferred by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam to include within the Principal Market Yard which were not included initially in the same by the notification issued under Section 7. The petitioners case was that it was by a subsequent amendment by U.P. Act No. 19 of 1979 that the power to the State Government to include any area or to exclude any area from the area of the Principal Market Yard had been conferred. Sub-section 2(a) of Section 7 after amendment reads as under :- "(a) include any area in or exclude any area from the area of principal market yard or Sub-Market yard or abolish the existing principal market yard or Sub-Market yards and declare a new principal market yard or Sub-Market yards." 4. The second argument of the petitioners was that no services are being tendered to the petitioners, as such, the levy of market fee was illegal. 5. The allegations made in support of the second argument are contained in Paragiaphs 29, 30, and 31. 6. In the counter-Affidavit filed on behalf of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, the allegation of the Service being not rendered has been denied. In Paragraph 12-A, 12-b and 12-C, these assertions have been made. It has been Stated in Paragraph 12-C that :- "It is stated that the Mandt Samiti have already collected market fee tune of Rs. In Paragraph 12-A, 12-b and 12-C, these assertions have been made. It has been Stated in Paragraph 12-C that :- "It is stated that the Mandt Samiti have already collected market fee tune of Rs. 26 lacs out of which 60% is fixed for development and 35% four rendering services. It is incorrect to say that the answering respondent has not drawn any plan for rendering any services whatsoever to the payers of market fee including petitioners either individually or collectively directly or indirectly, presently or in future. It is incorrect to say that the answering respondent are not in position to render any service to the petitioners and others. It is stated that the facilities of electricity, Banking and telephone are available." 7. The petitioners have filed rejoinder in reply to the counter. 8. During the pendency of the writ petition, a number of affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. 9. Before we come to the first point relating to the controversy about inclusion of any area in the Principal Market Yard, we may first deal with the question of rendition of services by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samati to the petitioners and other similarly situated. We have quoted from the counter-Affidavit that the allegations of the petitioners about non - rendition of services have been denied in the counter-Affidavit. It is not the law whatever is realised by way of fee, every piece of it must be spent in service. The requirement of law is that there shall be substantial expenditure of the persons from whom the same is realised. In some cases, the Supreme Court has gone even to the extent of saying that rendition of service is no part for proving quid proquo. However, we need not go to this extent as it is not necessary to do the same on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. Sum collected by way of market fee has been to our satisfaction established, is being spent for the welfare of those from whom it is realised. Consequently, we are of the view that the point relating to non -rendering of services say the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti has no substance. 10. Sum collected by way of market fee has been to our satisfaction established, is being spent for the welfare of those from whom it is realised. Consequently, we are of the view that the point relating to non -rendering of services say the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti has no substance. 10. Coming to the second question that the State Government has no power to include any not in the Principal Market Yard, we may point out that the argument, advanced by the petitioners did not satisfy us. The three villages were included in the Principal Market Yard of Kotdwar by means of the notification issued by the Additional Director. It has not been disputed that the power to issue a notification under Section 7 could be delegated by notification to the Director. The expression "Director" used in Section 33 will include Additional Director, by this notification, the three villages were included in the Principal Market Yard or Kotdwar. However, this point by itself would not be of any assistance to the petitioners, whether it could be lawfully done or not will not give any right to the petitioners to get the reliefs prayed for. The relief mainly market fee had been illegally levied as no services were being rendered. For deciding the said point, the question, as we have discussed above, is that the services were being rendered or not. We have already given finding on the above controversy against the petitioners. 11. With the help of the amendment application moved on 26th October, 1986, the petitioners counsel urged two additional points which had not been initially taken in the writ petition. These points are : (i) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti having not passed any resolution framing bye-laws collecting levy and market fee, as provided in Section 17, had no jurisdiction demand any market fee. (ii) That the Power of Mandi Samiti vested in the District Magistrate and delegation, if any, in ....................favour of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kotdwar entitling him to pass resolution for realisation of market fee was wholly illegal. 12. In Paragraph 10 of the counter-Affidavit, filed on 12th January, 1987, these allegations have been denied. The contesting respondent has stated that the power had been delegated by the District Magistrate to the Sub-divisional Magistrate and also that necessary resolution had been passed. We are satisfied with these averments made in the counter-Affidavit. 13. 12. In Paragraph 10 of the counter-Affidavit, filed on 12th January, 1987, these allegations have been denied. The contesting respondent has stated that the power had been delegated by the District Magistrate to the Sub-divisional Magistrate and also that necessary resolution had been passed. We are satisfied with these averments made in the counter-Affidavit. 13. As this place, we also wish to point out. That the present writ petition was filed in 1982. In 1982, the petitioners had not taken these points which been raised by means of the amendment application. This amendment application raised new controversy which was not the subject matter of the writ petition. 14. For what we have said above, we, dismiss the Writ Petition. No costs. The stay order is discharged.