ORDER 1. In these set of appeals we are required to examine the correctness or otherwise, of the interpretation put by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (Act No. 24 of 1973). The provision reads as follows:- "(1) Every market committee shall levy market fees on notified agricultural produce brought for sale or bought or sold in the market area at such rates as may be fixed by the Director from time to time subject to the minimum rate of one rupee for everyone hundred rupees of the price in the manner prescribed. "(2) The market fees shall be payable by the buyer of the notified agricultural produce and shall not be deducted from the price payable to the seller:- Provided that where the buyer of a notified agricultural produce cannot be identified, all the fees shall be payable by the person who may have brought the produce for sale in the market area." 2. The necessity of the same arose because the respondents herein on notices received, moved the High Court in writ petitions, questioning their liability as traders, to pay merket fee on the produce brought for sale in the market area, but not actually sold or bought. The challenge made by the respondents before the High Court mainly rested on the premise that unless the notified agricultural produce was bought or sold, the liability to pay market fee did not arise, and that even otherwise, the provision was unworkable until the price was computed which could only be discerned from the bargain of sale or purchase. They were successful before the High Court which took the view that the act of merely bringing notified agricultural produce for sale within the market area did not entitle the Market Committee to levy market fee which can only be levied when there is an actual sale or purchase in the market area. The notices issued by the Market Committee were, therefore, held as unauthorised and the impugned notices issued to the respondents were quashed. 3. A bare reading of the provision discloses that there is a wrinkle which need to be smoothened. The notices issued by the Market Committee were, therefore, held as unauthorised and the impugned notices issued to the respondents were quashed. 3. A bare reading of the provision discloses that there is a wrinkle which need to be smoothened. The words in sub-section (1) of section 19 are not smooth when providing that every Market Committee shall levy market fee on notified agricultural produce "brought for sale" or "bought" or "sold" in the market area at such rates as may be fixed by the Director from time to time, subject to the minimum rate of one rupee for everyone hundred rupees of the price in the manner prescribed. Prima facie, it gives the impression that three expressions/words- ''brought for sale", or "bought" or "sold", could, perhaps be read disjunctively and when we do so, we get stuck up with the concept of price, a measure of hundred rupees of which would attract, perhaps, a minimum rate of 1%. Unless there is a sale or purchase, the figure of price is not derivable. Noticeably, the legislature has not used the word "Value", and as has, rather strikingly, used the word "price". No flexibility, thus, is left in the provision, for it must work on the basis of price and that is a figure which is derivable from a contract of sale or purchase. The wrinkle, is prominent in the earlier part relating to disjunctiveness of the three expressions/words focused above. The word "or" occurring after the expression' 'brought for sale' "if read as' 'and" would clearly bring out the real intention of the legislature. As is known, the word "or" is normally disjunctive and the word "and" is normally conjunctive, but at times they are read vice versa to give effect to the manifest intention of the legislature, as disclosed from the context. As we have pin-pointed earlier, the word "price" used in the context cannot be ignored and has to be given its due place and importance. The word "or" would profitably have to be read as "and" so as to remove the wrinkle and smoothen the texture of the statute. 4. As we have pin-pointed earlier, the word "price" used in the context cannot be ignored and has to be given its due place and importance. The word "or" would profitably have to be read as "and" so as to remove the wrinkle and smoothen the texture of the statute. 4. Sub-section (2) of section 19 also land support to the above exercise when we notice therein that the market fee is obliged to be paid by the buyer of the notified agricultural produce and shall not be deducted from the price payable to the seller, provided, where the buyer of notified agricultural produce cannot be identified, all the fees shall be payable by the person who may have brought the produce for sale in the market area. The proviso goes to cover situations of clandestine sales. The bias exhibited in sub section (2) against the buyer is not easily shiftable and he is the person who is vested with the ownership thereof, on payment of price to the person who bought the agricultural produce for sale in the market area. The design of the provision under interpretation is not difficult to understand, and the High Court, though not analysing it in the manner in which we have done, has correctly arrived at the result by allowing the writ petitions. We endorse that view adding to it our own and dismiss the appeals as also the special leave petitions. 5. In passing, we must take note of a judgment rendered by this Court in C.A. No. 1871/1982 decided on December 6, 1991 where the challenge was made to the interpretation given by the High Court to section 19, but the Bench did not consider it necessary to express any view on the scope thereto. Some distinction was made between persons who were not growers or producers of agricultural produce and those who were commission agents or dealers in the notified agricultural produce. They were relegated to disclose their trade affairs to the Market Committees concerned in response to notices received. He refrain from expressing any opinion as to whether that step was right in the circumstances or not since we have chosen the straight path of pronouncing on the statute and have arrived at a decision. 6. There will be no order as to costs.