JUDGMENT M.K. Mukherjee C.J. - These two writ petitions have been heard together as common questions of fact and law are involved herein. 2. The petitioners in these petitions carry on business in wood in the town of Baheri in the district of Bareilly. As 'wood' is an 'agricultural produce' within the meaning of section 2(a) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (`Act' for short), they have obtained licences to carry on their business, as required under the Act. For effective and proper running of their business they purchase wood from the depots of the U.P. Forest Corporation (`Corporation' for short) situate at different places in the district of Nainital, Pilibhit and Lakhimpur Kheri through auctions. From there they transport the purchased commodity to their respective business premises in the town of Baheri. 3. Their grievances in these writ petitions is that, though they are not legally obligated to pay market fee under the Act to the Mandi Samities, which operate in the areas wherefrom they purchase the wood, namely, the depots of the Corporation and/or through which their goods are transported to Baheri, the respondents are insisting upon proof of such payments and upon gate passes issued by the concerned Mandi Samities and on their failure to do so, they are detaining their vehicles. 4. Mr. S.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners are carrying on business as `traders' and since they have purchaased the wood in question from another trader, namely, the Corporation, the latter is liable to pay the market fee payable, if any, under the Act to the appropriate Mandi Samities under S. 17(iii)(b)(3) of the Act. Mr. Gupta has next submitted that even the Corporation as vendor of the wood is not liable to pay any market fee under S. 17 of the Act as the concerned Mandi Samities do not render any service to the Corporation. Mr. Gupta lastly contended that no market fee was payable under the Act in respect of `agricultural produce' while in transit. In support of his last contention he relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Indodan Milk Products Ltd. Bombay v. State of U.P., 1985 UPLBEC 406 . 5. Mr. Mr. Gupta lastly contended that no market fee was payable under the Act in respect of `agricultural produce' while in transit. In support of his last contention he relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Indodan Milk Products Ltd. Bombay v. State of U.P., 1985 UPLBEC 406 . 5. Mr. B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mandi Samities, has contended that as the petitioners are not `traders' within the meaning of cl. (y) of Section 2 of the Act so far as the Mandi Samities of the area, within which the wood was purchased, are concerned, they are legally obligated to pay market fee in accordance with S. 17(iii) (b)(4) of the Act being the purchasers of the wood in question. 6. To appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it will be profitable at this stage to quote S. 17 of the Act so far as it ii relevant for our present purpose. "17. POWER OF THE COMMITTEES: A Committee shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the power to : (i) ........................... (ii) .......................... (iii) levy and collect (a) .......... (b) market fee, which shall be payablee transactions of sale of specified agricultural produce in the market area at such being not less than one per centum and not more than one and half per centum of the price of the agricultural produce so sold, as the State Government may specify by notification, and such fee shall be realised in the following manner - (1) If the produce is sold through a commission agent, the commission agent may realise the market fee from the purchaser and shall be liable to pay the Committee: (b) if the produce is purchased directly by a trader from a producer, the trader shall be liable to pay the market fee to the Committee; (3) if the produce is purchased by a trader from another trader, the trader selling the produce may realise it from the purchaser and shall be liable to pay the market fee to the Committee; and (4) in any other case of sale of such produce, the purchaser shall be liable to pay the market fee to the Committee. (Provided that no market fee shall be levied or collected on the retail sale of any specified agricultural produce where such sale is made to the consumer) ......................" From a plain reading of the above four clauses it is evidently clear that market fee is payable on transactions of sale of specified agricultural produce in the market area. While clauses (1) and (3) of Section 17(iii)(b) of the Act fixes the liability or obligation for payment of market fee on the seller and authorise such seller to pass on the burden of market fee to the purchaser, in cases falling under clauses (2) and (4) the Act makes the purchaser liable for payment of market fee. In the context of the above provision and in view of the stand taken by the respective parties, we have first to consider whether the sale in the instant cases is under cl. (3) or clause (4) above. For such consideration we may now profitably look to the definition of `trader' in S. 2(y) of the Act. Thereunder `trader' means a person, who in the ordinary course of business, is engaged in buying or selling (emphasis supplied) agricultural produce as a principal or as a duly authorised agent of one or more principals and includes a person engaged in processing of agricultural produce. 7. It cannot be gainsaid, on the admitted facts of the instant case, that the petitioners are buying agricultural produce from the Corporation and the latter is selling the same to the petitioners both in the ordinary course of business. Since the words `buying or selling' have been used disjunctively and not conjunctively, both the petitioners and the Corporation must, therefore, answer the description of `trader' within the meaning of S. 2(y) and that necessarily means that the cases in hand squarely fall under cl. (3) of section 17(iii)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the petitioners as purchasers are under no obligation to pay market fee to the Mandi Samities who are operating in the areas where the depots of the Corporation are situate and where from the purchases are being made by the petitioners. 8. In view of our above finding, we need not go into the second contention of Mr. Gupta that even the Corporation is not liable to pay market fee. 9. The third contention raised by ,Mr. 8. In view of our above finding, we need not go into the second contention of Mr. Gupta that even the Corporation is not liable to pay market fee. 9. The third contention raised by ,Mr. Gupta that the goods while in transit are not liable to any market fee has got to be accepted in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Indodan Milk Products Ltd., Bombay (supra) which has expressly laid down that goods on transit are not liable to any market fee under the Act. 10. On the conclusions, as above, we allow these writ petitions. Let a mandamus be issued prohibiting the respondents from demanding or realising market fee from the petitioners on the purchases made by them from the Depots of the Corporation and on transfer of the purchased goods from the depots to their business premises at Baheri. They are further directed to issue gate passer to the petitioners without insisting upon the payment of the market fee. Let it be put on record, by way of abundant caution, that the petitioners, if demanded, must produce valid documents to show that the wood has been purchased by them from the depots of the Corporation. ere will be no order as to costs.