JUDGMENT Petitioner firm is running a Dal mill. It claims that it purchases seeds of Udad, Moong, Masoor, Gram, etc. from States of Gujarat, Maharashtra and other States and brings them in Indore and splits them to convert in pulses and then sells out the pulses outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and in this manner is neither bringing in Indore any notified agricultural produce for sale nor is it buying or selling such produce within the market area. But despite this respondent No. 1 had raised the demand of Rs. 1,36,794.80 on various heads and had also dragged on its case for renewal of license and had also filed private complaint against it u/Ss. 48 and 49 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972. It is alleged that action of respondent No. 1 was in malafide exercise of power and in contravention of the provisions of section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. Respondent No. 1 has taken the preliminary objection against the maintainability of this petition on the plea of available alternate remedy to the petitioner u/s 61 of Adhiniyam, 1972 whereby he was required to approach Director of the Mandi with his grievance first. It is also disputed in the reply filed that the petitioner was carrying pulses outside the State and that he neither was purchasing or selling these pulses in the market area. It is also pointed out that petitioner's licence case could not be disposed off because he had failed to fulfill the requisite formalities. Allegations of malafides are also denied. Relevant portion of section 19 which is material for our purposes is reproduced hereunder : "19. Power to levy market fee -- 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 State Govt. from time to time subject to the minimum rate of 50 paise or maximum rate of two rupees for everyone hundred rupees of the price in the manner prescribed." A careful perusal of the provision leaves no scope for doubt that the market fee was leviable on notified agricultural produce brought for sale or bought or sold in the market area. No market fee could be levied if such produce was not brought for sale within the market area or was not bought or sold in such area. No market fee could be levied if such produce was not brought for sale within the market area or was not bought or sold in such area. Similarly such market fee was payable by the buyer of the produce and was not deductible from the price payable to the seller. However, if the buyer could not be identified, such fee was payable by the person who may have sold or brought the produce for sale in the market area. Mr. Z.A. Khan, LC for petitioner laid great emphasis on the terms of the demand notice and urged that respondent No. 1 was suffering from misconception that a market fee was leviable the moment notified agricultural produce was brought in the area. He cited from 1997 (1) WN 2, 1980 (2) WN 1 and 1979 (2) WN 55 whereby it stands settled that market fee was chargeable on notified agricultural produce brought for sale or bought or sold in the market area and not otherwise. There can be no quarrel with the preposition enunciated and the interpretation placed on the provision of section 19 of the Adhiniyam in the judgments relied upon by LC for petitioner. Nor does it require any research to be conducted to reach such a conclusion that market fee was not chargeable if the notified agricultural produce was not brought for sale or bought or sold in the market area. But in the present case it is strongly refutted and disputed by respondent No. 1 that converted pulses were not sold in the market area by petitioner firm and that it was not bringing seeds of various Dais for sale in the market area. The matter thus raises a disputed question of fact and it is not possible for this Court to embark an enquiry whether petitioner firm was bringing the agricultural produce for sale or whether it was selling it in the market area. The matter can be better determined and decided by the competent Authority of Krishi Upaj Mandi by conducting requisite enquiry into the matter to ascertain the genuineness of the petitioner's claim that he was not conducting any transaction of the agricultural produce within the market area. Similarly it is also for the petitioner to satisfy the requirements for renewal of his licence and furnish requisite information to respondent No. 1 to facilitate just adjudication of its claim. Similarly it is also for the petitioner to satisfy the requirements for renewal of his licence and furnish requisite information to respondent No. 1 to facilitate just adjudication of its claim. Petition is accordingly disposed off by providing as under : "Petitioner may approach Director, Mandi with his grievance within one month from today to show that the firm was not bringing any agricultural produce for sale in the market area nor was buying or selling any such produce therein and was not thus liable to be charged market fee. If any such representation is made within the time prescribed, concerned Director shall examine it and conduct requisite enquiry in the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of section 19 of the Adhiniyam within four months from the receipt of any such representation. Status quo shall be maintained in respect of the raised demand for Rs. 1,36,794.80 till such orders are passed." Should petitioner feel aggrieved of any such order it shall be at liberty to take appropriate remedy if available."