Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. Whether a market committee constituted under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (for short, "the 1961 Act") can levy market fee and collect rural development fund on the goods brought within its jurisdiction by the dealer after paying such fee, etc., to the market committee from whose jurisdiction the goods were purchased is the main question which arises for consideration in these petitions. An ancillary question, which we have been called upon to decide is whether non-submission of forms LL and E prescribed under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (for short, "the 1962 Rules") and the Haryana Rural Development Rules, 1987 (for short, "the 1987 Rules") respectively disentitles the dealer from claiming exemption from payment of market fee, etc. 2. The petitioners are engaged in the processing of rice from paddy purchased from various market yards within and from outside the State of Haryana. They are registered as dealers under the 1961 Act as well as the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the 1973 Act"). They have been granted licences under the 1961 Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Their grievance is that market committees of Ganaur and Cheeka (respondent No. 3) are seeking to realise market fee, etc., on the goods purchased from market yards situated outside their jurisdiction despite the fact that they have already paid market fee, etc., to the market committees from whose jurisdiction the goods had been purchased. 3. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have justified the proceedings initiated for levy and collection of market fee and rural development fund by contending that the petitioners did not submit forms LL and E within the time stipulated in the 1962 and 1987 Rules. In the written statement filed in C.W.P. Nos. 15937 and 15945 of 1999, they have averred that despite the notices issued by respondent No. 3, the petitioners failed to produce proof about the payment of market fee and rural development fund and, therefore, they are estopped from challenging the impugned notices. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15937 and 15945 of 1999, they have averred that despite the notices issued by respondent No. 3, the petitioners failed to produce proof about the payment of market fee and rural development fund and, therefore, they are estopped from challenging the impugned notices. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A look at the documents annexed with the petitions shows that in view of the order dated October 28, 1994 passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 7899 of 1994 (Varsha Spinning Mills Ltd. v. State of Haryana) and the order dated May 19, 1997 passed in the case of Ganesh Rice and General Mills declaring that the time period fixed for submission of forms LL and E is directory, respondent No. 3 could not initiate action for realisation of the market fee, etc., from the petitioners and other similar situated licensees. However, after the order passed by this Court in the case of Ganesh Rice and General Mills was reversed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6081 of 1998 Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Boards v. Ganesh Rice and General Mills AIR 1999 SC 378 the Chief Administrator of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board issued instructions vide Memo No. ME-III-3404-99 dated February 16, 1999 to the authorities of the market committees to insist on strict compliance of Rule 30 of the 1962 Rules including the submission of form LL within 20 days of the date of bringing the agricultural produce in the notified market area and in pursuance of those instructions, respondent No. 3 initiated proceedings for recovery of the market fee, etc., from the petitioners on the premise that they had failed to submit the prescribed forms within the stipulated period. The petitioners contested the notices by asserting that they had already paid the market fee at the time of purchase of the produce/commodities. 5. Shri O.P. Goyal argued that respondent No. 3 cannot collect market fee from the petitioners because they had bought the produce after paying fee to the market committees from whose jurisdiction the purchases had been made. The petitioners contested the notices by asserting that they had already paid the market fee at the time of purchase of the produce/commodities. 5. Shri O.P. Goyal argued that respondent No. 3 cannot collect market fee from the petitioners because they had bought the produce after paying fee to the market committees from whose jurisdiction the purchases had been made. He relied on the observations made in the decision of the Supreme Court and submitted that before initiating action for levy of market fee, etc., respondent No. 3 should have given opportunity to the petitioners to prove that they had deposited forms LL and E. Shri R.S. Tacoria submitted that the petitioners cannot claim exemption from payment of market fee because they failed to submit the prescribed forms within the stipulated period. 6. We have given serious thought to the respective submissions. In the cases of Varsha Spinning Mills Ltd. (C.W.P. No.7899 of 1994 decided on October 28, 1994--Punjab and Haryana High Court) and Ganesh Rice and General Mills, this Court had held that the time stipulated in Rule 30 of the 1962 Rules and the provisions contained in the 1987 Rules for submission of forms LL and E respectively as a condition precedent to the claiming of exemption from payment of market fee and rural development fund are not mandatory and even if the dealer submits such forms after the expiry of the said period, it is entitled to claim exemption. However, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Boards v. Ganesh Rice and General Mills AIR 1999 SC 378, these decisions can no longer be treated as good law. In that case, their Lordships referred to Rule 30 of the 1962 Rules and held that the provision contained therein is mandatory. The relevant portion of the decision of the Supreme Court reads as under : "4. Rule 30 of the Rules provides that no market fee shall be levied on the sale or purchase of any agricultural produce in respect of which such fee is already paid in the notified market area in which the said produce was manufactured or extracted. Sub-rules (3) to (5) are relevant in this case. Rule 30 of the Rules provides that no market fee shall be levied on the sale or purchase of any agricultural produce in respect of which such fee is already paid in the notified market area in which the said produce was manufactured or extracted. Sub-rules (3) to (5) are relevant in this case. They read as follows : (3) The dealer who claims exemption from the payment of market fee leviable on any agricultural produce manufactured or extracted from the agricultural produce in respect of which the market fee has already been paid in another notified market area, shall make declaration and give certificate to the committee in form LL, where the fee has already been paid within twenty days of the day of bringing of agricultural produce within the notified market area. Form LL shall be prepared in quadruplicate from the booklets duly attested and issued by the Secretary of the committee against the payment fixed by the Committee. It will be the duty of the dealer claiming exemption from the market fee under this sub-rule to send the original copy of form LL to the Committee within whose market area the agricultural produce is brought. The second copy shall be sent to the office of the committee within whose market area such agricultural produce was bought, and the third and fourth copies shall be retained by the dealer-purchaser and the dealer-seller, respectively and the same shall be kept as a part of their accounts maintained in respect of market fees. (4) It shall be the duty of the dealer claiming exemption from market fee under Sub-rules (3) and (5) to produce a copy of the R/R, forwarding note, bilty or challan, as the case may be, duly signed by him or his authorised agent in the office of the committee from whose market area the agricultural produce is brought before it is unloaded, the second copy in the office of the committee within whose market area the agricultural produce is brought before it is unloaded and the third copy to be retained by him : Provided that if no such copy of R/R, forwarding note, bilty or challan is produced in the office of the concerned committee, no claim for exemption shall be entertained. (5) The agricultural produce brought for processing from within the State "or from outside the State" and for which market fee has already been paid in any market in the State "or outside the State", shall be exempted from payment of market fee second time : Provided that the dealer who claims exemption under Sub-rule (5) from the payment of fee leviable on any agricultural produce brought for processing shall make declaration and give certificate to the committee in form LL duly attested by the secretary of the committee where fee has already been paid, within twenty days of the bringing agricultural produce within the notified market area and complies with the provisions of sub Rule (2). 5. Under the above rule, three conditions are required to be satisfied for the purpose of claiming exemption by a dealer : A. The dealer should have paid the market fee already in a market area. B. The dealer shall make a declaration and give certificate to the committee in form LL where the fee has already been paid. C. Such form shall be filed within 20 days of the date of bringing the agricultural produce within the notified market area. 6. Unless all the above conditions are fulfilled it is not possible for the market committee to accept a mere statement that market fee had already been paid and the dealer was not liable to pay it again. Compliance with the rule is not a mere technical formality. In the present case, first respondent did not admittedly file form LL with the Market Committee. It filed Form M only after the prescribed time-limit. Even in that form, as pointed out already, column 7 was not filled up. In such circumstances the stand taken by the market committee that the first respondent was liable to pay market fee was correct. 7. The High Court has unfortunately overlooked the fact that the first respondent had not filed form LL and make a declaration or give a certificate as required by the rule, but instead filed only form M and that too leaving column 7 blank. The High Court has proceeded on the footing that there was only a delay in filing the required declaration. Hence the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable and the appeal is to be allowed....". 7. The High Court has proceeded on the footing that there was only a delay in filing the required declaration. Hence the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable and the appeal is to be allowed....". 7. After declaring that the view taken by this Court in Ganesh Rice and General Mills case AIR 1999 SC 378 is erroneous, their Lordships of the Supreme Court proceeded to give following relief to the petitioners : "But learned counsel for the first respondent points out rightly that in the memo issued by the market committee on March 18, 1997, it was not pointed out that the first respondent ought to file form LL containing declaration and certificate. Nor was the attention of the first respondent drawn to Rule 30. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the market fee was actually paid when the produce was purchased. According to him all the relevant receipts for payment of market fee in the area are readily available with the first respondent. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the first respondents right to claim exemption from payment of market fee in Karnal shall not be defeated as it is stated to have been paid already actually in the area where the produce was purchased. The first respondent is also willing to file the declaration and certificate in form LL. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has submitted that if the declaration and certificate in form LL are filed within 2 weeks from this date the market committee would not insist upon compliance with the period of limitation prescribed in the rule in view of the defect in the memo dated March 18, 1997 and consider the question whether the fee had been paid already and the first respondent is entitled to exemption. Hence, we direct the first respondent to file the declaration and certificate in form LL with the marketing committee, Karnal, within a period of two weeks from this date and the latter shall on such filing of the declaration and certificate grant the exemption to the first respondent from payment of market fee if the other conditions in the rule are satisfied irrespective of the period of limitation prescribed in the rule." 8. In view of the above position, we are inclined to agree with the prayer that respondent No. 3 may be directed to first examine the plea of the petitioners that they had already submitted forms LL and E though belatedly and, therefore, they are entitled to claim exemption from payment of market fee and rural development fund. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions : (i) within one month from today, the petitioners should produce before the competent authority of respondent No. 3 to show that they had submitted forms LL and E under the 1962 and 1987 Rules respectively. (ii) respondent No. 3 shall examine such evidence and pass appropriate order within next one month keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Rice and General Mills AIR 1999 SC 378 ; and (iii) if the petitioners fail to produce evidence regarding the submission of the prescribed forms, respondent No. 3 shall be free to recover the market fee and rural development fund with interest.