ORDER Mohamed Anwar, J.—Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both sides. 2. By this writ petition, the Petitioner prays that Respondent may be directed to release 11 bags of supari seized from the jeep vehicle bearing No. KA-12 M-96 on 10.4.2000 at about 9.00 a.m. from the market area of Puttur in Dakshina Kannada, contending that the same belonged to him and that it was illegally seized by the official of the Respondent-Committee on the baseless suspicion that it was being transported evading payment of market fee. 3. Counter for the Respondent is filed disputing the contention of the Petitioner, contending therein that the so-called supari was nothing but arecanut which was being illegally transported in the said jeep vehicle by its driver through the said market area in order to evade payment of market fee payable with respect thereto under Sub-section (2) of Section 65 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 ('the Act' for short). 4. Since it was the admitted case of the Respondent that out of said 11 bags, only one bag of areacanut was sufficient for the purpose of collection of market fee with respect to the said commodity, this Court by its order dated 24.7.2000 directed the Respondent to release 10 bags of seized commodity to the Petitioner on his executing an indemnity bond in Respondent's favour. Accordingly, 10 out of the 11 bags of the seized areacanut have been admittedly released to the Petitioner. As a result, now only one bag of the said areacanut weighing about 65 k.gs. is still in the custody of the Respondent. 5. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Counsel for Petitioner, maintained that seizure of the said commodity by the Respondent's official was entirely illegal since there was no sufficient justification for him to effect the said seizure under any provisions of the Act. 6. Per contra, Mr. B.G. Sridharan, learned Counsel for Respondent, argued that the virtue of Sub-section (7) of Section 66 read with Section 65(2) of the Act, Respondent's official had ample power to seize the said commodity while in transit and, therefore, he was legally justified in seizure thereof, and that the said one bag of areacanut which is in custody of the Respondent could be released to the Petitioner only on payment of the market fee at the rate stipulated in Sub-section (2) of Section 65. 7. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions put forward by both sides, it is essential to advert to the material portions of Sub-section (7) of Section 66 and Sub-section (2) of Section 65. Section 66 deals with power of an officer or servant of the State Government empowered by it to direct production of accounts, to enter any premises, and inspection and seizure of any commodity in respect of which market fee under Sub-section (2) of Section 65 is payable. The relevant portion of Sub-section (7) of Section 66 reads: 66. Power to order production of accounts an power of entry, inspection and seizure.- xxx xxx xxx xxx (7) If such officer or servant has reason to suspect that any person is attempting to evade payment of any market fee due from him under Section 65, he may, while seizing accounts registers or documents under Sub-section (3) also seize so much of the notified agricultural produce as in his opinion would be sufficient to meet the amount of fee which may be found due from such person and also the penalty leviable under Section 65-A, and retain the same with him until the fee and the penalty are paid or for ten days, whichever is earlier. After the expiry of the period of ten days.... Section 65 which is a charging provision provides for levy of market fees. For our purpose, Sub-section (2) of Section 65 is the relevant provision, the material portion whereof runs: 65. Levy of market fees.-(1) xxx (2) The market committee shall levy and collect market fees from every buyer in respect of agricultural produce bought by such buyer in the market area, at such rate as may be specified on the bye-laws which shall not be more than.... 8. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the seized areacanut was a notified commodity and that the place from which it was seized was a market area. A combined reading of the aforequoted provisions makes it clear that for any officer or servant of the State Government empowered by it in this regard, to seize any notified agricultural produce in any market area on account of non-payment of market fee chargeable under Sub-section (2) of Section 65, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (1) that the agricultural produce in question was bought in the market area. (2) that there was sufficient justification for the said officer or servant to reasonably suspect that the said agricultural produce was being transported or carried by the buyer or his agent in this attempt to evade payment of any market fee due under Section 65(2) of the Act. 9. The fulfilment of these two conditions is the sine-qua-non for seizure of any notified agricultural produce in any market area by the concerned officer or servant of the Government. In the instant case, there is absolutely not an iota of material on record even prima facie establishing that the seized arecanut bags were purchased in the market area of Puttur and also that they were being transported by the buyer thereof. It was contended by Mr. B.G. Sridharan that since no satisfactory explanation was given either by the driver of the jeep or by the Petitioner himself as to how they came by possession of the said bags, it has to be presumed that the said arecanut was purchased in the market area and was transported in the said jeep vehicle with a view to evade payment of market fee due to be paid under Sub-section (2) of Section 65 of the Act. This is a preposterous argument of Mr. B.G. Sridharan in the absence of any presumptive provision under the Act declaring that if any notified agricultural produce in transit through a market area is seized by the concerned officer or servant, it may be presumed to have been purchased in the market area and was being transported with an intention to evade payment of the market fee, unless the contrary is proved. Therefore, the contention of Mr. B.G. Sridharan is without any legal force. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Respondent shall return to the Petitioner one bag of arecanut which still lies in its custody, out of the 11 bags which were seized on 10.4.2000 from the jeep vehicle bearing No. KA 12 M.96 by Respondent's official, under an indemnity bond to be executed by Petitioner in Respondent's favour.