JUDGMENT 1. - As per the facts stated in the memo of writ petition, the petitioner is dealing in Sugar, Khandsari, Cur, Bura and other grocery items in the market area of Kherli, District Alwar, as a licence holder of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kherli (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mandi Samiti'). The Mandi Samiti has been charging mandi tax on "BURA" which, according to the petitioner, it is not entitled to recover and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that mandi tax is not chargeable on "BURA". Notices of the writ petition were issued to the respondents and they have filed reply, to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner. Along with the rejoinder, the petitioner has produced order Annexure-2 issued by the Additional Director (Agriculture Marketing), Jaipur stating the market-fee is not leviable on "BURA". 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in a taxing statute words which are not technical expressions or words of art, but are words of everyday, must be understood and given a meaning, not in their technical or scientific sense, but in a sense as understood in common parlance, i.e., that sense, which people conversant with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing, would attribute to it, and in this connection, has placed reliance on M/s Mukesh Kumar Agrawal and Co.Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, AIR 198 SC 563. He has further submitted that since the item 'BURA' has not been included in the Schedule annexed with the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Markets Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), though 'CHINI', KHAND, KHANDSARI has been included, the Mandi Samiti is not entitled to recover mandi tax on BURA which is a different item altogether. On the other hand, learned counsel-for the respondents has submitted that BURA is an agricultural produce and there- fore, Mandi Samiti is fully authorised to recover mandi tax on BURA. The list given in the Schedule is not exhaustive but only illustrative. Learned counsel for the Mandi Samiti has placed reliance on a decision of this Court, in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. M/s Vishambhar Dayal Shree Chandra, S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 149/1985 D/d. 21.11.1986 . The list given in the Schedule is not exhaustive but only illustrative. Learned counsel for the Mandi Samiti has placed reliance on a decision of this Court, in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. M/s Vishambhar Dayal Shree Chandra, S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 149/1985 D/d. 21.11.1986 . which was a petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against an order of the Additional Judicial Magistrate wherein while interpreting the word 'SUGAR' occurring in the Essential Commodities Act, did not include 'BURA' in the definition of 'SUGAR', on the ground that the percentage of sugar as sucrose in BURA, and 'KHANDSARI' are different. She has also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Kishan Lal v. The State of Rajasthan, Writ Petition No. 1555/1979 and other connected petitioners D/d. 23.03.1990, wherein the validity of the Act levying market fee on sale and purchase of agricultural produce in market yard or sub-market yard was challenged on various grounds, including that KHANDSARI, SHAKKAR, CUR and SHAKKAR have been arbitrarily included as agricultural produce in the Schedule. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in that case, after referring to several cases, came to the conclusion, that KHANDSARI, SHAKKAR, CUR and SUGAR are agricultural produce and have been rightly included in the Schedule. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. 4. The Act was promulgated to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce in the State of Rajasthan. Section 2(1)(i) of the Act defines 'agriculture produce' as under : "(1) "agricultural produce" includes all produce whether of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry or otherwise as specified in the Schedule." 5. Section 17 of the Act authorises the market committee to collect market fee from the licensees in the prescribed manner, or agricultural produce, bought or sold by them in the market area. The Schedule attached with the Act with reference to Section 2(1) (i) is divided into ten different Headings. In heading 10- Miscellaneous- there appear 'CUR', 'CHINI', 'KHAND' and 'KHANDSARI' but 'BURA' is not included in it as such. In Bhargava's Standard Illustrated Dictionary of the Hindi Language (February, 1982 Edition) 'KHAND' has been described as under: "unrefined sugar, treacle molasses" whereas 'CHIN I' has been described as under:- "sugar" Thereafter, 'BURA' has been described to mean "unrefined sugar, powder" (which is yellow). In Bhargava's Standard Illustrated Dictionary of the Hindi Language (February, 1982 Edition) 'KHAND' has been described as under: "unrefined sugar, treacle molasses" whereas 'CHIN I' has been described as under:- "sugar" Thereafter, 'BURA' has been described to mean "unrefined sugar, powder" (which is yellow). In India, everybody understands the difference between 'KHAND, 'KHANDSARI', 'CHINI' and 'BURA'. Their shape is different,their taste is different and may be their chemical qualities also different. 'BURA' is a distinct item than 'CHINI', KHAND or KHANDSARI. It is true that BURA is also a sweetening article and makes things sweet whenever it is added like CHINI, KHANDSARI or KHAND. While interpreting a taxing statute we should give meaning to the words as understood in common parlance i.e. the sense which people conversant with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing,would attribute to it. Such words must be understood in their popular sense. The words used have to be understood according to the common commerce understanding of the term used. The expression 'BURA' is a well recognised connotation and everybody knows the difference between BURA in contrast to CHINI, KHAND and KHANDSARI. Therefore, it cannot be said that BURA is same thing as CHINI, KHAND or KHANDSARI nor it can be said that since in respect of CHINI, KHANDSARI or KHAND market fee is leviable so market fee should also be leviable on BURA. The definition of agriculture produce given in Section 2(1)(i) of the Act makes the things clear. Whatever item, the Legislature wanted that market fee should be levied in respect thereto, has been specified in the Schedule and for item which has not been specified in the Schedule, the intention of the Legislature is clear that market fee should not be levied on that item. Merely because it may be said that 'BURA' is also an agricultural produce, it is not open for the Mandi Samiti to collect market fee unless the same has been included and specified in the Schedule annexed with the Act. The observations of this Court in Vishambhar Dayal's case (supra) are of no avail because in that case, which was a criminal case, the trial court had excluded 'BURR' from the definition of 'SUGAR' as occurring in the Essential Commodities Act, on the ground that the percentage of Sugar as sucrose in BURA and KHANDSARI are different. The observations of this Court in Vishambhar Dayal's case (supra) are of no avail because in that case, which was a criminal case, the trial court had excluded 'BURR' from the definition of 'SUGAR' as occurring in the Essential Commodities Act, on the ground that the percentage of Sugar as sucrose in BURA and KHANDSARI are different. What prevailed this Court in that case was that because 'BURA' and 'KHANDSARI' are species of sugar, therefore, are liable to market fee. There is no discussion in that case. It is a very short order and the argument that because 'BURA' has not been included specifically in the Schedule and therefore not liable to the payment of market fee, was not considered in that case. Similarly, the observations of the Supreme Court in Kishan Lal's case (supra) are also not very relevant inasmuch as in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering as I to whether the articles 'KHAND', KHANDSARI, SUGAR and GUR and SHAKKAR have been arbitrarily included in the list of agricultural produce. The Court came to the conclusion that since all these items could be said to be agricultural produce within the definition of that term, their inclusion in the Schedule cannot be said to be arbitrary. As I have already said that 'BURA' could be included within the definition of agricultural produce but since it has not been included in the Schedule, no market-fee is leviable. The legislature, in its wisdom, has excluded 'BURA' from inclusion in the Schedule, therefore, its intention is writ large that the legislature never wanted that market- fee should be levied on 'BURA'. 6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and it is declared that Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti , Kherli, Distt. Alwar is not entitled to charge Mandi Tax (market fee ) on 'BURA'. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******