( 1 ) THE moot question urged by Sri Parikh is as to whether when an agriculture produce is sold by the trader to the State government, the market fee payable to the committee constituted under the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 has to be paid the seller-petitioner or the purchaser State Respondent no. 2. ( 2 ) SHRI C. K. Parekh, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition with reference to a Division Bench decision of our own High Court in Shri Vijay Rice Mills Rudrapur Vs. State of u. p. 1998 (33) A. L. R. 684 contended that this writ petition be disposed of in the same manner as it was done in Vijay Rice Mills (supra ). ( 3 ) SHRI B. D. Madhyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no. 6,on the other hand, contended that the question raised by the petitioner now stands authoritatively concluded by two division Bench judgements rendered by three Judges of the Supreme court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Hardwar Vs. Indian Food products Ltd. and others, disposed of by judgement and order dated july 19,1999, and thus accordingly following the ratio laid down therein this writ petition be dismissed. ( 4 ) IN our view the question urged on behalf of the petition stands answered authortatively by the Honble Supreme Court in krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly supra the relevant part of which reads thus :- "the precise question, which we have noticed above came up for considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Mahalaxmi rice Mills and Ors. Vs. State of U. P. and Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 590 , wherein it was held that the Market Committee was entitled to collect the market fee from the seller and it is for the seller to pass the burden on the purchaser, if he so chooses. The Bench went on to say that the respondents cannot shirk the responsibility to pay the market fee to the Market Committee when the transaction falls within the purview of sub-clause 3 of Section 17 (iii) (b) of the Act and that it would open to them to receive the same from the purchaser - Government. The judgement of the three Judge Bench (supra) has answered the precise question. We are not persuaded to take a different view. The judgement of the three Judge Bench (supra) has answered the precise question. We are not persuaded to take a different view. We may, at this stage, also point out that the judgement relied upon by the High Court in the case of India Wood Products Ltd. (supra)was considered by the three Judge Bench in Mahalaxmi Rice Mills case (supra)and not approved. Since the matter is covered by the judgement in Mahalaxmi rice Mills case (supra) following that judgement, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders. Consequently, the writ petitions filed in the High Court shall stand dismissed. " ( 5 ) FOLLOWING the ratio laid down before mentioned we, too, dismiss writ petition. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, however, we make no order as to cost. ( 6 ) A copy of this order shall be handed over within one week to Shri H. R. Mishra, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 for its communication to the authority concerned. Petition Dismissed. .