SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition filed by the petitioners seeks the following reliefs :". . . . . . to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring thati) Notification in Annexures 1, 1/a, 2 and 2/s so far as it relates to Sabai Rope" and "sal leaf" utensils are ultra vires of the Act,ii) Unprocessed or processed Sal leaves are not "agricultural produce" and the persons collecting and processing the same are not "agriculturist" within the meaning of the Act;iii) "sabai rope" and "sal Leaf" utensils" are commercially manufactured goods which are not subject to market fee as agricultural produce;iv) opposite parties 2 and 3 are not entitled to collect market fee on manufactured goods for storage at the interval of each 21 days in case the same are stored for sale for transport outside the State for 21 days or more. . . . . . " ( 2 ) IN fact, notice under section 2 (i) of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 covering manufacture of dish and cup out of sal leaves and manufacture of Sabai rope from Sabai grass is being challenged. It is urged that collection of market fees on plates and cups (Cone) manufactured out of Sal Leaves is conceded to be ultra vires the Act by opposite parties 2 and 3. There is a prayer for issuance of writ for refund of market fees collected on those manufactured goods. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners is that Sabai Rope is manufactured by different machines after processing Sabai Grass and this is a new and different commercial goods. Reliance has been made on two reported decisions, namely, AIR 1992 SC 224 , M/s Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Haryana State Board and 1996 (I) OLR 195 M/s. Jagannath Cotton Company v. State Government of Orissa and others. ( 4 ) OPPOSITE parties 2 and 3 deny the petitioners' contentions. It is pointed out that "agricultural produce" is defined under Section 2 (i) of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956. ( 4 ) OPPOSITE parties 2 and 3 deny the petitioners' contentions. It is pointed out that "agricultural produce" is defined under Section 2 (i) of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956. The schedule to Section 2 (i) has undergone considerable change from time to time in exercise of powers conferred under Section 26 of the Act and as per the latest Notification of the State Government under item XI in the Schedule to Section 2 (1) Grass, Fodder, Forest and other miscellaneous, Sabai Grass and rope and Sal Leaves find mention. ( 5 ) IT is also argued that the State Government vide Notification under Section 4 (7) read with Section 3 dated 26-12-1994 has notified the Schedule including therein gross, fodder, forest and Sal Leaves. Further Sabai grass and rope find mention under sub-items (ii ). Accordingly, Sal Leaves, Sabai Grass and Sabal rope are agricultural produces as defined under Section 2 (1) of the Act. Attention of the Court is drawn to several Notifications filed as Annexures 1, B/3, B/2 and C/3. It is also argued that in view of the Notification under Sections 4 (1) and 4 (7) of the Act, opposite parties 2 and 3 are authorised to collect market fees on Sabai Grass, Sabai Rope and Sal Leaves since these are agricultural produces. By way of notification dated 20-2-1961, Sabai Grass has been notified as an agricultural produce for which it is assessable to market fee by opposite party No. 2. Traders have already obtained licence for using the market yard of opposite party No. 2 for purchase and sale of Sabai Grass, Sabai Rope and Sal Leaves. In terms of the findings of the Apex Court, the goods and processed goods are different entity and liable for levy of market fee such as paddy and rice, which are treated as separate commodities. Similar is with Sabai Grass and Sabai Rope as well as Sal Leaves. The petitioners are continuing to purchase and sell notified agricultural produces without obtaining the required licence as prescribed under law. The Forest Department allows the petitioners to transport Dry Sal Leaves, but in order to evade market fees the petitioners are claiming the same as manufactured item. ( 6 ) ATTENTION of the Court has been drawn to the latest Notification dated 25-11-1988. The Forest Department allows the petitioners to transport Dry Sal Leaves, but in order to evade market fees the petitioners are claiming the same as manufactured item. ( 6 ) ATTENTION of the Court has been drawn to the latest Notification dated 25-11-1988. It is, however, conceded by opposite parties 2 and 3 in paragraph-19 of their counter affidavit that collection of market fees on 'khali' and 'dona' manufactured out of Sal Leaves is unauthorised and opposite parties 2 and 3 are liable to refund the same for which appropriate writ may be issued. ( 7 ) THIS Court has considered the contentions and counter contentions. This Court has also perused the scheme of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956. This Court has also considered various Notifications issued time to time. Upon perusal of the definition of "agricultural Produce", it cannot be reconciled how Sabai Rope and Sal leaf utensils are simply agricultural produces. It is found by the Apex Court and several High Courts that the definition as understood is not pedentical, but as understood in common parlance. "sabai Rope" and "sal Leaf Utensils" cannot be equated to grass and/or raw material. They are different entities after undergoing various mechanical and manufacturing processes. We thus find sufficient merit in the contention of the petitioners and hold that the Notification under Annexures 1, 1/a, 2 and 2/a as they relate to Sabai Rope and Sal leaf utensils is ultra vires the Act. Consequently the benefits are also available to the petitioners. The writ petition is allowed. Issue appropriate writ accordingly. No costs. ( 8 ) R. K. DASH, J. :- I agree. Petition allowed.