Honble SHETHNA, J.– The petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Padampur has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 2.1.89 passed by the Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan, Agriculture (Gr.2.B.) Department (Annexure-1). (2). Mr. Sharma learned counsel for petitioner submitted that like RIICO the petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti should have also been exempted from house tax as provided u/S. 107 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959. In support of his contention he has relied upon Second Proviso to Sec. 107 (2) of the Act. (3). Sec. 107(1) of Rajasthan Municipalities Act provides that taxes specified in Sec. 104, 105 and 106 shall not be leviable by the Board in respect of any property belonging to or vested in it. House tax is in Sec. 104 of the Act. (4). Sec. 107 (2) of the Municipalities Act provides that none of the taxes specified in Clauses (1) and (2) of Sec.104 & in clauses (i), (iii), (iv) and (v) of Sec. 105 (1) shall be leviable in respect of lands, buildings, goods vehicles, conveyances, boats or animals belonging to or vested in the Government. Second Proviso to Sec. 107 (2) Provides that any land, building, goods vehicle, conveyance, boat or animal belonging to or vested in the State Government. Second proviso to Section 107(2) provides that any land, building, goods, vehicle, conveyance, boat or animal belonging to or vested in the State Government shall also be exempted from the payment of any such tax if the same is used or intended to be used solely for public purposes and not for purposes of profit. (5). On the basis of Second proviso Mr. Sharma vehemently submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-1 passed by the State Government is illegal because the land is vested in the State Government itself, which cannot be levied by way of house taxes. I am afraid this submission of Mr. Sharma cannot be accepted because reading the Second Proviso as a whole it is clear that the exemption is given for Public Purposes and not for property. From the impugned order at Annexure-1 it clearly appears that initially there was some doubt in the mind of the authority about the levy of house tax, therefore, a clarification was sought by the Director of Agriculture, Rajasthan. From the impugned order at Annexure-1 it clearly appears that initially there was some doubt in the mind of the authority about the levy of house tax, therefore, a clarification was sought by the Director of Agriculture, Rajasthan. By way of impugned order at Annexure -1 it was clarified by the Local Self Department that since the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samities are established for the purpose of trade and other commercial activities exemption from house tax of the buildings owned by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samitis is not permissible under the provisions of the Municipalities Act, 1959. The said decision was to be informed to all Krishi Upaj Mandi Samitis and accordingly the said decision was communicated to all Krishi Upaj Mandi Samitis including the petitioner. The petitioner has challen- ged the same by way of this petition. (6). When State Government itself has stated that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samitis are established for the purpose of trade and other commercial activities, therefore, exemption from house tax of the buildings owned by the present Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti cannot be granted, then this court would not sit in appeal over that decision and decide the same in its writ jurisdiction whether the decision of State Government was right or wrong. (7). However,learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Sharma invited my attention to Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act,1961 and submitted that functions and duties of Market Committee are clearly mentioned in it which go to show that Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti cannot be said to be indulding in trade or commercial activities. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned decision/ order dated 2.1.89 (Annexure-1) of the State Government is illegal. (8). In Sec.9 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act 1961 the function and duties of Market Committee are specified and clarified. That has nothing to do with the trade or commercial activities. From the statement and object of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act 1961 itself it is clear that the committee was established when there was no other single measure which helped agriculturists in getting the better price for their produce then Regulation of market as in its meeting held in July, 1954 recommended the enactment of similar legislation in other States including Rajasthan. This shows that the introduction of the Act was for the purpose of trade and commercial activities only. This shows that the introduction of the Act was for the purpose of trade and commercial activities only. As stated earlier the State Government itself is the best person to decide whether it was established for the purpose of trade and commercial activities or not. If the State Government in its wisdom has come to the conclusion that it was established for the purpose of trade and other commercial activities then this Court will certainly not interfere with such decision in its writ jurisdiction. (9). At this stage one more aspect is required to be stated namely that if the State Government wanted to exempt the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti from house tax then either it could have clearly provided under the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act or under the Municipalities Act itself. The submission of Mr. Sharma was that RIICO was exempted from the house tax, therefore, there is a discrimination in not exempting the petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is without any substance. If the State Government thought it fit to exempt RIICO from house tax then petitioner cannot say that it should also be exempted from payment of house tax as RIICO & SAMITES are totally different. Hence, this submission of Mr. Sharma is rejected. (10). In view of above discussions, I do not find any substance in this petition. Accordingly this petition fails and is dismissed.