JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Sharda Rice Mill, Devi Rice Mill, Umesh Kumar Parvesh Kumar and Gauri Shanker Nand Kishore. All of the petitioners carry on the business of producing and selling rice in the town of Khurja, District Bulandshahr. 2. The petitioners have challenged the validity of levy of market-fee on the ground that which rice is consigned to the commission against for sale, no sale takes place within the limits of the Krishi Utpandan Mandi Samiti, Khurja and as such no market fee is payable. Their case is that the consignments of rice, which are sent by the petitioners to their commission agents for sale on behalf of the petitioners, at the places outside the market area of Khurja are not sale to them and in the absence of sale no market-fee is leviable. It is alleged in this petition that Mandi Samiti, Khurja issued gate passes in respect of consignments, which used to be sent out for sale. Subsequently the authorities stopped issuing gate passes on the consignments sent outside. Thereafter on 7-2-1985 the Mandi Samiti issued a notice along with a copy of circular dated 9-11-1984. This Circular instructed the Mandi Samities that under Rule 66 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, if the specified agricultural produce has been weighted and measured within the market area it will be deemed that sale had taken place. The Circular further states that this rule should be strictly enforced and no gate pass should be issued without realising market-fee. 3. The petitioners alleged in this Writ Petition that the instructions issued by the State Government which were incorporated in the Circular were illegal. The petitioners' argument was that under Rule 66 market-fee could be charged only on transaction of sale or purchase and not on consignments regarding which no sale took place within the limits of the market area of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi concerned. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties. 5. The respondents placed main reliance on Rule 66 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam and the Circular as Annexure XX to the Writ petition. The controversy relating to this Circular came up for decision before us in Writ Petition No. 1168 of 1985 (Agarwal and Co. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties. 5. The respondents placed main reliance on Rule 66 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam and the Circular as Annexure XX to the Writ petition. The controversy relating to this Circular came up for decision before us in Writ Petition No. 1168 of 1985 (Agarwal and Co. Dal Mill Siana Road, Bulandshahr v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bulandshahr & another). We after having followed the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s Rajesh Kumar Vinod Kumar and others v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Dhanpur and others (1985 ALJ 882) held that the realisation of market fee on the consignment which were not sent out in pursuance of any sale or purchase taking place in the Mandi Samiti would be invalid. 6. Sri B.D. Mandhyan, counsel for the Mandi Samiti, however, urged that whether a particular transaction was of sale or purchase or not is a question which has to be determined by the Mandi Samiti itself. That may be so. If Mandi Samiti, on the materials produced before it, satisfied that the consignments were sent out in pursuance of transactions of sale and purchase within the Mandi Samiti itself, it may be justified in levying market fee, but not otherwise. Consequently, if the Mandi Samiti is satisfied on the production of the documents, that the particular transaction was a sale, it would be entitled to charge market-fee on the same, but on others, in pursuance of which goods were despatched outside, it will not be entitled to get the market-fee. This determination may take place within two months from the production of the certified copy of the judgment by the petitioners before the Mandi Samiti. If the determination is not made within this period, the petitioners would be entitled to get the refund of the entire amount deposited by it under the stay order passed by the Court on April 16, 1985. 7. Subject to the above, the Writ petition succeeds and is allowed. No