C. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) IN both the Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for restraining the respondents from realising market fee on "maida", contending that it is not a notified agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2 (m) of the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, hereinafter referred to as "act", and hence, cannot be subjected to payment of market fee under Section 19 of the aforesaid Act. ( 2 ) FACTS lie in a narrow compass. Petitioners are either manufacturers of bread or manufacturers of biscuits using 'maida' or dealers in grain including "maida". It is their allegation that the Krishi Upaj Mandi i. e. , respondent No. 1 in both the cases insists for payment of market fee on "maida". it is their contention that Maida not being a notified agricultural produce, cannot be subjected to market fee. ( 3 ) SRI Abhay Sapre appears on behalf of the petitioners, whereas, respondent No. 1 is represented by Sri C. L. Kotecha and Sri Arpan Pawar, State of Madhya Pradesh is represented by Sri V. K. Shukla. ( 4 ) SRI Sapre, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that in part II of the Schedule of the Act under the heading "cereals", "wheat" has been mentioned at item No. 2 and Maida although derived from wheat, is different than it and hence not covered under the item wheat so as to subject "maida" for payment of market fee. He submits that the matter stands squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 413 : ( AIR 1994 SC 64 ), and my attention has been drawn to following paragraph of the said Judgment :-"40. For the above reasons, we hold that flour, maida and suji derived from wheat are not 'wheat' within the meaning of Section 14 (i) (iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Flour, maida and suji are different and distinct goods from wheat. In other words, flour, maida and suji are not declared goods. "mr. For the above reasons, we hold that flour, maida and suji derived from wheat are not 'wheat' within the meaning of Section 14 (i) (iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Flour, maida and suji are different and distinct goods from wheat. In other words, flour, maida and suji are not declared goods. "mr. Sapre emphasises that in the schedule attached to the M. P. Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960, "maida" was specifically mentioned in the schedule and the same having been omitted in the present Act, clearly goes to show the intention of the Legislature not to subject 'maida' to market fee. ( 5 ) SRI Sapre further submits that even if it is held that Maida is agricultural produce, it is required to be notified as notified agricultural produce so as to subject the same for market fee. According to him, in the absence thereof, no market fee can be levied. Further contention of Mr. . Sapre is that the use of expression, "whether processed or not" while defining agricultural produce under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act, may entitle the respondents to notify "maida" as agricultrual produce but the same having not been done, no market fee is leviable on Maida. ( 6 ) SRI V. K. Shukla, appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh contends that during the relevant time, agricultural produce included all produce whether processed or not of Agricultural, Horticulture etc. specified in the schedule and "maida" being produced after processing the wheat, same is subject to payment of market fee under Section 19 of the Act. Mr. Shukla emphasises that Maida has to be specifically included in the schedule of the M. P. Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 as in the said Act, while defining Agricultural produce, the expression "processed or not" did not find place in the Act and hence there was necessity to incorporate "maida" specifically as one of the items; on which market fee was leviable. As regards the stand of the petitioners that in the absence of any notification declaring "maida" as notified agricultural produce, no market fee can be levied, Mr. Shukla submits that said question has been squarely answered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Manakchand Nathuram Agrawal v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Itarsi, AIR 1983 Madh Pra 126. Shukla submits that said question has been squarely answered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Manakchand Nathuram Agrawal v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Itarsi, AIR 1983 Madh Pra 126. His further submission is that in the present case, schedule mentioning the agricultural produce and notified agricultural produce forms part of the Act and no item can be added in the same without amendment in the Act. According to him, the contention of the petitioner that the expression "whether processed or not" under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act, while defining Agricultural produce is to confer power for including such items in the schedule, is misconceived. ( 7 ) MR. Arpan Pawar, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 contends that Section 69 of the Act confers power to the State Govt. to grant exemption from payment of market fee on any item and no exemption having been granted by the State Govt. , petitioners are liable to pay market fee on "maid". ( 8 ) SEC. 2 (1) (a) of the Act during the relevant time read as follows :-"2. Definitions.- (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) "agricultural produce" means all produce "whether processed or not" of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, apiculture, pisciculture, or forest as specified in this Schedule". It is relevant here to state that the words, "whether processed or not" occurring in the aforesaid provision were omitted by M. P. Act No. 5 of 1980. Section 2 (m) defines notified agricultural produce and during the relevant time, it read as follows :-"2 (m) "notified agricultural produce" in relation to a market means all such produce specified in the Schedule". Section 19 of the Act inter alia confers power on the Market Committee to levy market fee on notified agricultural produce, relevant portion of Section 19 of the Act reads as under :"19. Power to levy market fee (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 State Government from time to time subject to the minimum rate of 50 paise or minimum rate of two rupees for every one hundred rupees of the price in the manner prescribed. "xxx xxx xxx xxx ( 9 ) TRUE it is that in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Flour Mills ( AIR 1994 SC 64 ) (supra), "maida" is different and distinct good from wheat, but here in the present case, in view of the definition of the agricultural produce under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act, it requires consideration as to whether Maida can be said to be a processed item of the Agricultural produce. Section 2 (1) (mm) defines, processing which means - powdering, crushing etc. to an agricultural produce before final consumption. In my opinion, "maida" is produced by powdering wheat and in view of definition of the agricultural produce during the relevant time which included the expression "whether processed or not", I do not have the slightest hesitation in holding that "maida" is an agricultural produce. ( 10 ) MR. Sapre's argument that the Legislature having omitted item "maida" while enacting the present Act, which item formed part of the Schedule in the M. P. Agricultural Market Act, 1960, clearly shows its intention not to levy market fee on Maida, although is very attractive but on deeper scrutiny, it has no substance. It is relevant here to state that in the M. P. Agricultural Produce Act, 1960, "maida" found place at Serial No. 1 of Part II of the Schedule. Aforesaid Act has been repealed by the present Act. In the repealed Act, agricultural produce was defined under Section 2 (1) (i) in the following words-"2. 2 (1) - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (i) "agricultural produce" means the produce of agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry and all other produce specified in the Schedule. "a plain reading of the aforesaid provision clearly shows that the words "whether processed or not" as appearing in the definition of "agricultural produce" in the present Act did not find place in the repealed Act. In my opinion, because of the absence of these words, in the repealed Act, it was incumbent upon the Legislature to include Maida specifically in the Schedule, whereas in view of definition of the agricultural produce in the present Act, which includes agricultural produce whether processed or not, it was unnecessary to include Maida in the Schedule. In my opinion, because of the absence of these words, in the repealed Act, it was incumbent upon the Legislature to include Maida specifically in the Schedule, whereas in view of definition of the agricultural produce in the present Act, which includes agricultural produce whether processed or not, it was unnecessary to include Maida in the Schedule. ( 11 ) IT is well known rule of interpretation that Legislature is aware of the words which it has used in the repealed Act and in case the words occurring in the earlier Act do not find place in the latter Act, prima facie it shows a different intention. As pointed out earlier, agricultural produce was differently defined in the repealed Act than the present Act and hence, omission of Maida in the Schedule does not lead to the conclusion that Legislature intended not to subject Maida to market fee. In my opinion, intention of the Legislature to include Maida for payment of market fee is writ large from the use of the expression "whether processed or not" while defining agricultural produce. ( 12 ) I do not find any substance in the submission of Sri Sapre that as Maida has not been notified as agricultural produce, same cannot be subjected to market fee. As pointed out by Mr. Shukla, same is squarely answered by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Manakchand Nathuram Agrawal v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Itarsi, AIR 1983 Madh Pra 126, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said Judgment, which is relevant for the purpose read as follows :-2 Shri M. C. Nihlani, learned counsel for the petitioner confined the attack to the levy of market fee on these four items of agricultural produce only on two grounds. His first contention is that the market fee being recoverable only on notified agricultural produce as defined in S. 2 (m), by virtue of Sec. 19 (1) of the Act, and these items of agricultural produce not being so notified, there is no lawful authority for its recovery in respect of these items sold in the market area. The other contention of the learned counsel is that there is no quid pro quo for recovery of the market fee, which is a sine qua non of its validity. 3 The aforesaid first contention has no merit. The other contention of the learned counsel is that there is no quid pro quo for recovery of the market fee, which is a sine qua non of its validity. 3 The aforesaid first contention has no merit. Section 2 (m) of the Act defines 'notified agricultural produce' as any produce specified in the notification issued under Section 4. Section 3 of the Act provides for notification of the intention to establish a market for regulating purchase and sale of such agricultural produce and in such area as may be specified in the notification. Objections to the same received within a specified period are then to be considered and establishment of the market is required to be notified under S. 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides for another notification by the State Government to establish a market for the area specified in the notification under Sec. 3 or any portion thereof for the purpose of this Act in respect of all or any of the kind of agricultural produce specified in the earlier notification. Thus, Section 3 provides for notification of the intention to establish such a market and Sec. 4 for notification establishing the market, after considering and deciding the objections and suggestions as may be received in response to the notification issued under S. 3. Section 19 (1) of the Act empowers the Market Committee to levy market fee on notified agricultural produce brought for sale in the market area at such rates as may be fixed from time to time, subject to the minimum rupees of the price. As earlier stated, 'notified agricultural produce' on the sale of which, within the market area, market fee can be levied, is defined in Sec. 2 (m), as any produce specified in the notification issued under Sec. 4. In the present case, the relevant notification under Sec. 4 of the Act has been produced by the respondent and is at page 22 of the Paper Book. This notification was issued under the M. P. Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960, which Act has been repealed under Section 82 of this Act, but the saving therein provides for continuance of the markets established, market areas declared and agricultural produce notified, etc. , under the repealed Act. There is no dispute that this notification continues to be operative. This notification was issued under the M. P. Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960, which Act has been repealed under Section 82 of this Act, but the saving therein provides for continuance of the markets established, market areas declared and agricultural produce notified, etc. , under the repealed Act. There is no dispute that this notification continues to be operative. A bare perusal of the same is sufficient to indicate that all the four aforesaid items of agricultural produce in respect of which this petition has been filed, are notified therein so as to satisfy the definition of 'notified agricultural produce' contained in Section 2 (m) of the Act. " ( 13 ) IT is relevant here to state that various items have been included in the Schedule and the same forms part of the Act. Argument of Sri Sapre that incorporation of words "whether processed or not" in the definition of agricultural produce is only to enable the respondents to incorporate processed items in Schedule, is absolutely misconceived. Inclusion of an item in the Schedule in the present scheme of the Act is a Legislative function. I do not find any substance in this submission of Sri Sapre. ( 14 ) AS regards submission of Sri Arpan Pawar that there being no exemption from payment of market fee by the State Govt. under Section 69 of the Act, market fee is leviable on Maida, I am of the opinion that even in relation to the items which are subject to payment of market fee, State Govt. has the authority to exempt the same from payment of market fee. This submission of Sri Pawar has been noted only for the purpose of keeping the record straight. In fact, same has no bearing on the decision of the present Writ Petitions. ( 15 ) IN the result, I do not find any merit in both the Writ Petitions and they are dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Security amount, if deposited be refunded to the petitioners. Petitions dismissed. .