DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 1936 of 1983 (Flint Court Trading and investment Private Ltd. , 11 Nehru Road, Bhopal v. M. P. State Co-operative marketing Federation Ltd. , Bhopal and others ). The petitioner company deals in salseed, which is a specified forest produce, sale and purchase of which is regulated by the M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969. The said Adhiniyam creates monopoly in favour of the State in the matter of purchase and sale of specified forest produce which is salseed in the present case. ( 2 ) THE salseed was first sold by the Forest Department of the State to the respondent No. 1 M. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. The petitioner purchased the salseed from the Federation. As the petitioner did not require some quantity of salseed purchased by it, it wanted to dispose it of to another needy purchaser and such subsequent sale was permitted by the respondent/state and its authorities, but after charging price differential at the rate of Rs, 5/- per quintal over and above the sale price of the saiseed. The petitioner chal lenges imposition of above price differential at the rate of rs. 5/- per quintal, imposed under the order of the State Government in its communication dated 27-7-1983 (Annexure P-11 ). ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the point involved in the present case concerning imposition of the above price differential on the subsequent sale of salseed is covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Misc. Petition No. 2369 of 1983, decided on 3-5-1989 (Khemchand Motilal v. State ). This decision was concerning sale of Tendu patta under the provisions of M. P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964. It may be mentioned that the scheme of the co-enactments concerning specified forest produce i. e. , M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman)adhiniyam, 1969 and M. P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 is similar and the provisions are pan materia. The Division Bench in the above case upheld similar levy of additional price differential on subsequent sale. The challenge was on similar grounds in the Tendu Patta case. We may quote the ratio of that case contained in paragraph 21 of the order as under :"21. The Division Bench in the above case upheld similar levy of additional price differential on subsequent sale. The challenge was on similar grounds in the Tendu Patta case. We may quote the ratio of that case contained in paragraph 21 of the order as under :"21. We have placed such construction on Section 3 of the Act as would effectuate and implement the object of the Act. Reading section 5 in the manner aforesaid and on the settled principles of statutory interpretations, we are of the opinion that the State government in exercise of their monopoly right of purchase could evolve a procedure whereby the first purchaser has to first effect a sale of excess tendu leaves to the State Government and the State government on its part, may sell it to the subsequent purchaser on some additional price. It is not the case of the petitioners that the additional price charged from the subsequent purchaser is highly burdensome. The only contention of the petitioners is that the additional price charged in the name of 'transfer fee', 'price differential' or 'profit' is a levy wholly outside the provisions of the Act. As has been explained by the Division Bench in Lal ragho Shah's case (supra) the State Government possessing the monopoly right of purchase, can dispose of Tendu leaves in the public interest, being the owner of the property. The action of the State Government is, therefore, unassailable. "( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an attempt to distinguish the above referred Division Bench decision and contended that in the present case there is not even semblance of second sale from the State government to the subsequent purchaser. We have examined the documents evidencing transactions of subsequent sale, as are contained in Annexures R-2 and R-3. We find that there is no appreciable difference between the nature of transaction of second sale involved in the present case and the case decided by the Division Bench concerning Tendu leaves. We have examined the documents evidencing transactions of subsequent sale, as are contained in Annexures R-2 and R-3. We find that there is no appreciable difference between the nature of transaction of second sale involved in the present case and the case decided by the Division Bench concerning Tendu leaves. In the instant case, also since the trade in salseed is monopolised by the State Goyernment, the first purchaser can effect no direct sale in favour of any private party and, therefore, it is required to approach the State Government which permits subsequent sale and such subsequent sale, however, is permitted through it only on payment of some additional price Which is described as price differential at the rate of Rs. 5/- per quinltal. Such a levy is perfectly valid as held by this Court in the earlier decision and no exception can be made "to the same as the State Government was fully competent to demand some additional price on subsequent sale of the commodity in which it is trading under the Act as a monopolised. ( 5 ) THE petition, therefore, has no substance and is hereby dismissed. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs of this petition. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. .