ORDER R.S. Garg, J. By this petition, the Petitioner Komalchand who is carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s Durjan Sao Champalal Jain, has sought relief that the recovery proceedings started by Respondent No. 1 through Respondent No. 2 are liable to be quashed. Respondent No. 2 despite notice and S.P.C. did not choose to appear in the Court. Respondent No. 2 is only the Recovery Officer, therefore, there are no returns on the record. According to the Petitioner, he had obtained a licence from Respondent No. 1 for doing business as a trader and the said licence has been duly renewed from time to time. Respondent No. 1 is a Mandi Committee constituted under the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 1 for the year 1976-77 and 1977-78, i.e. from 1-11-1976 to 30-9-1978, started recovery proceedings for the recovery of Rs. 17,894.96. According to the Petitioner, the assessment was arrived at on the basis of value of goods at the point of bringing the goods within the market area. According to the Petitioner, at the material time, market fee was payable by the buyer and not the seller as per Section 19(2) of the Act. The Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being a seller no Mandi tax could be recovered from him because such an action shall be contrary to Section 19 of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered in Misc. Petition No. 825/1974, Tilakraj Juneja v. State, decided on 25-9-1978, it is submitted that it is only the purchaser/buyer who is liable to pay tax and not a seller or trader. It is further submitted by the Petitioner that the licences of some of the traders were not being renewed by Respondent No. 1 for non-payment of the Mandi tax levied against them, therefore, they filed Misc. Petition No. 712/1979, Naxminarayan v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti The said petition was decided on 22-11-1979, with the direction that as the decision of Tilakraj Juneja (supra) was pending consideration before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 136/1979, the Petitioners of that petition shall furnish security to the satisfaction of the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and on furnishing of the security their licences shall be renewed. The Petitioner submits that in view of the pendency of the Appeal No. 136/79, before the Supreme Court, no recovery could be made or proceedings could be commenced against the Petitioner who was merely a seller and not a buyer. The Petitioner further submits that he had received notice from the office of Respondent No. 2 for payment of the amount in relation to revenue case No. 108-A-76/78-79. In support of the petition, Shri Khirwadkar learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as the Petitioner is a seller, in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, no recovery can be made from him and the recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of Respondent No. 1, by Respondent No. 2, are patently illegal. It is also submitted that Section 19 of the Act does not authorise collection of market fees on the goods brought for sale within the market area and the Petitioner being a trader has only brought the goods for sale within the market area. He being a seller is not liable to pay Mandi tax. On the other hand, Shri Aradhe learned Government Advocate submits that the Petitioner being a trader is liable to pay tax because he has brought/purchased taxable goods within the market area and even otherwise if he has sold the goods, then unless he discloses the details of the purchaser/buyer, he himself would be liable to pay Mandi tax. Section 2(e) of the Act defines commission agent as under: 2(e) 'Commission agent' means a person who on behalf of the principal and in consideration of a commission or percentage upon the amount involved in such transaction buys agricultural produce and makes payment in cash, keeps it in his custody and delivers it to the principal in due course or who receives and takes in his custody agricultural produce sent for sale from outside the market area, sells the same in the market area and collects payment therefor from the buyer and remits the sale proceeds to his principal. Section 2(p) defines trader as under: (p) 'trader' means a person who in his normal course of business buys or sells any notified agricultural produce, and includes a person engaged in processing of agricultural produce, but does not include an agriculturist as defined in Clause (b) of this Sub-section. Section 2(p) defines trader as under: (p) 'trader' means a person who in his normal course of business buys or sells any notified agricultural produce, and includes a person engaged in processing of agricultural produce, but does not include an agriculturist as defined in Clause (b) of this Sub-section. The marked difference in the two definitions to be seen is that a commission agent has no title in the property but under the authority of his principal either he is buying or selling the agricultural produce and is keeping the goods in his custody for being delivered to his principal in due course or after selling the said goods collect the amount from the buyer and is required to remit the sale proceed to his principal. A trader is a person who buys or sells any notified agricultural produce and also includes a person engaged in processing agricultural produce. According to the definition, a trader would be a person who buys or sells within the market area or the market yard. Section 19 of the Act, as it stood in the year 1985, provided that every market committee shall levy market fees on notified agricultural produce brought for sale or sold in the market area with a minimum or maximum percentage of the rate in the manner prescribed. According to Sub-section (2) of Section 19, 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. By this section, it is amply clear that the seller is entitled to full price and has not to pay any market fee or tax because nothing is liable to be deducted from the price payable to the seller. The burden of paying tax is only on the buyer. Taking advantage of Sub-section (2) of Section 19, the Petitioner wants to contend that fee is payable by the buyer/purchaser and as he being a trader has sold the goods, nothing is recoverable from him. The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 19 make it clear that where the buyer of notified agricultural produce cannot be identified, all the fees shall be payable by the person who may have sold or brought the produce for sale in the market area. The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 19 make it clear that where the buyer of notified agricultural produce cannot be identified, all the fees shall be payable by the person who may have sold or brought the produce for sale in the market area. The further proviso provides that in case of commercial transaction between the traders in the market area, the market fees shall be collected and paid by the seller. The first proviso of Sub-section (2) of Section 19 makes it clear that where the buyer cannot be ascertained nor is known, the seller is duty bound to make payment of the goods sold by him because in a situation where the buyer of the notified agricultural produce cannot be identified, the Mandi is unable to recover the tax. To maintain records of the buyer is the primary duty of the seller and if he fails to discharge the duty cast upon him, he must suffer the pinch of the tax. So far as the judgment in Tilakraj Juneja (supra) is concerned, this Court has held that there is some apparent conflict between Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section 19 but if the two Sub-sections are read together, it would appear that the act of mere bringing notified agricultural produce for sale within the market area does not entitle the market committee to levy market fee because the market fees can be levied only when there is sale within the market area. This Court has further observed that the market fee is payable primarily by buyer but if the buyer is not identifiable, the person who purchases the produce for sale in the market area can be made liable. This Court has held that Rule 56(2) framed under the old Act was inconsistent with Section 19(1) of the 1973 Act. This Court has also held that Rule 51(2) is also inconsistent with Section 19(2) of the 1973 Act. In the matter of Tilakraj Juneja (supra), this Court has further held that the Mandi Committee is not entitled to levy fees u/s 19, unless the notified agricultural produce is sold within the market area. Against the judgment of this Court, Civil Appeal No. 136/1979 was filed before the Supreme Court. In the matter of Tilakraj Juneja (supra), this Court has further held that the Mandi Committee is not entitled to levy fees u/s 19, unless the notified agricultural produce is sold within the market area. Against the judgment of this Court, Civil Appeal No. 136/1979 was filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, affirming the judgment of this Court, has observed: 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 fee on notified agricultural produce brought for sale or bought or sold in the market area at such rate as may be fixed by the Director from time to time, subject to minimum rate of one rupee for every one hundred rupees of the price in the manner prescribed. Prima facie, it gives the impression that the three expressions/words 'brought for sale' or 'bought' or 'sold' can perhaps be read disjunctively and when we do so get stuck up with the concept of price, a measure of hundred rupees of which would attract perhaps 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 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 clearly 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 pinpointed 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. As we have pinpointed 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. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 also lends support to the above exercise, when we notice therein that the market fee is obliged to be paid by the buyer as notified agricultural produce and shall not be deducted from the price payable to the seller and 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 the clandestine sales. The ties exhibited in Sub-section (2) against the buyer is not easily shiftable and he is the person who is vested with the supervision thereof on payment of the price to the person who brought 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 in the manner in which we have done but has clearly arrived at the result by allowing the writ petition. We endorse that view, adding to it our own and dismiss the appeal as also the special leave petition. From a perusal of this judgment, it is clear that on selling of the notified agricultural produce in the market or market yard or market area Mandi Committee is entitled to recover the market fees/tax. It can only be recovered when the produce is brought in the market area and sold or is bought in the market area. The judgment of this Court approved by the Supreme Court would not come to the rescue of the Petitioner. The Petitioner if he is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act, then obviously on sale of the goods, recovery of mandi fee cannot be made from him because at that point, he is only the seller who has to receive payment, but if that buyer is not identifiable, then in such a case, the agriculturist would be liable to pay the Mandi fees. It is not the case of the Petitioner that he is producer of the agricultural produce and did not bring the notified produce within the market area for the purpose of sale. When a trader comes into business, it is to be presumed that either he buys the agricultural produce or sells it. Unless he is producer and is ready with the stock, he cannot sell it, therefore, purchase by him is to be presumed. As the Petitioner himself being a trader has bought the notified agricultural produce, he is bound to make the payment and if he feels that he is merely a seller, he is required to give details of the purchasers from him and in the absence of such details he again is liable to make payment as provided in Section 19(2). Taking the case from any angle and treating the Petitioner as purchaser or seller, he cannot escape his liability because in the first case where he is a buyer his responsibility is absolute but in case where he is a seller but the buyer is unidentifiable his liability would again arise. The Petitioner thus is liable to pay Mandi tax. The petition deserves to and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Security amount, if any, deposited by the Petitioner, shall be refunded after due verification.