JUDGMENT Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—The Writ Petition No. 35161 of 1999 has been filed by the Petitioner which is a Limited Company and is engaged in business of manufacture of paper board at factory. The eucalyptus wood, according to the Petitioner's own case, is one of the main raw-material required for manufacture of paper board. The Petitioner admits that it purchased the eucalyptus wood from various places in Karnataka including Dobbaspet, Devanahalli and Malur. The Petitioner's further case is that the eucalyptus wood is widely grown in various places in Karnataka and the farmers sell the same directly to the Petitioner-Company and the Petitioner-Company takes delivery of eucalyptus wood at the plantation site where the said eucalyptus wood is grown. 2. The case of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 42952 of 1999 is that the Petitioner-Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of Rayon Grade Pulp at its factory and eucalyptus wood is one of the main raw-material required for the manufacture of Rayon Grade Pulp and the Petitioner purchases the eucalyptus wood from various places in the State including Doddaballapur. 3. The Respondents, according to the Petitioners, issued notices to the Petitioners to take the relevant licence under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 as well as requiring them to submit accounts and pay the market fee. The notice that had been issued to the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 35161 of 1999 is Annexure-C' to the writ petition. This is dated 17.8.1999. Similarly in the other writ petition No. 42952 of 1999, the Respondent had issued the notice to the Petitioner, copy of which is Annexure-B to the Writ Petition No. 42952 of 1999, calling upon the Petitioner to take licence as well as to submit accounts and pay the market fee. The Petitioners have challenged these notices of demand as illegal. The Petitioners have challenged these notices on the ground that the eucalyptus wood is not an agricultural produce and that the Petitioners are not liable either to take licence or to pay the market fee for transactions. The Petitioners' case is that they have purchased the eucalyptus wood from the farmers which they grow in field. 4. On notices being issued, counter affidavit has been filed by and on behalf of the Market Committee as well as by the State Government. The Petitioners have also filed the rejoinder. 5. The Petitioners' case is that they have purchased the eucalyptus wood from the farmers which they grow in field. 4. On notices being issued, counter affidavit has been filed by and on behalf of the Market Committee as well as by the State Government. The Petitioners have also filed the rejoinder. 5. The case of the Petitioners is firstly that eucalyptus is not an agricultural produce and as such, Section 65 will not apply to transactions relating to eucalyptus. 6. This first contention of the Petitioners' Counsel appears to be devoid of merits. The expression "agricultural produce" has been defined in the Act, vide Section 2(1) of the Act, as under: Section 2(1). Agricultural Produce means the produce or goods specified in the Schedule. The definition thus reveals that the expression 'agricultural produce' has not been used in ordinary sense. The Act defines the expression "agricultural produce" as produce of goods specified in the schedule and the definition has to be applied. The eucalyptus has been notified as an agricultural produce vide notification No. CMW 142 MRE 91, dated 25.1.1999 published on March 11, 1999. There is no dispute that the eucalyptus has been included in the schedule and by virtue of its being included in the schedule. Once this eucalyptus has been included in the schedule as an agricultural produce, it has to be taken as an agricultural produce for the purpose of the Act. As such, this first contention of the Petitioner that the eucalyptus is not an agricultural produce is without substance. 7. As regards the question of liability of registration, the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, vide Section 8, provides that no person shall carry on sale or purchase of any agricultural produce in the market area, at any place other than the place specified there for, i.e., either market yard or sub-market yard nor without taking licence therefor. Section 8 Sub-section (2) Clause (b) further provides that, no person shall without or otherwise than in conformity with the terms and conditions of licence granted by the Market Committee in this behalf use the place in any market area for the marketing of the notified agricultural goods. Section 8 Sub-section (2) Clause (b) further provides that, no person shall without or otherwise than in conformity with the terms and conditions of licence granted by the Market Committee in this behalf use the place in any market area for the marketing of the notified agricultural goods. The provisions being very specific and clear and the eucalyptus having been declared as an agricultural produce, the Petitioner could not carry on business at any place other than the place established and authorised in the market area for the marketing and a person cannot make use of market yard or place in the market area unless and until he has obtained the licence and he has to act in accordance with the terms of the licence granted to him by the Market Committee. Therefore when the Market Committee required the Petitioner to obtain the licence to carry on the business for sale or purchase of the notified good i.e., eucalyptus, it did not commit any error either of law or of jurisdiction. 8. As regards the question of market fee, Section 65 of the Act provides for levy and collection of market fee and Sub-section (2)(a) provides vide Clause (ii) that if a produce is directly purchased by a trader from a producer, the trader is liable to pay the market fee to the committee. 9. In the present case, it has been alleged that the Petitioners purchased the eucalyptus from the producers. As such, being the purchasers from the producers, the Petitioners are no doubt liable to pay the market fee when the transaction had taken place in the market area. The market area is something bigger than the market yard and if it takes within the market area, then the trader/purchaser is liable to pay the market fee. 10. As such, being the purchasers from the producers, the Petitioners are no doubt liable to pay the market fee when the transaction had taken place in the market area. The market area is something bigger than the market yard and if it takes within the market area, then the trader/purchaser is liable to pay the market fee. 10. As regards the question of quid-pro-quo, it is proper at this juncture to refer to the following decisions: This Court in a decision dated December 8, 1996 in Writ Petitions No. 2170 to 2174 of 1994 and other connected writ petitions, after a detailed consideration of the authorities in this aspect of the matter, laid it down as under: A perusal of the scheme of the Act, as mentioned earlier, reveals that whatever has been enacted under the Act including the provisions for the levy and collection of market fee is directed towards one object and one purpose, i.e., to provide better regulation of marketing in agricultural produce and towards establishment and administration of markets for agricultural produce in the State of Karnataka. The Legislature when enacted the Act empowering levying of the fee by the Market Committee established under Act had this purpose in view. Markets have to be established by the authorities as per Sections 3 to 7 of the Act with Market Committees thereof. It is very clear the purpose for which the market fees to be utilised, i.e., the market fee is to be utilised for the purpose and for furtherance of the object of the Act by establishment and administration of the markets for the agricultural produces. This object is beneficial not only to the producers but also to the traders and other functionaries. It is really a type of service to be rendered. Establishment of market committee at one place for marketing in the notified agricultural produces in every market area is only one object, i.e., to provide for the better regulation of marketing of agricultural produce so that the major benefits of the marketing may go to the market functionaries including the producers and traders and not to the middle men. It is in relation to the marketing in all types of notified agricultural produces. Section 63 of the Act defines the powers and duties of the market committee. It is in relation to the marketing in all types of notified agricultural produces. Section 63 of the Act defines the powers and duties of the market committee. The duties of the market committee are to implement the provisions of the Act, the rules and bye-laws made thereunder in the market area and to provide such facilities for transport and marketing of agricultural produce therein as the State Government may from time to time direct and to do such other acts as may be required in relation to the superintendence, direction and control of markets or for regulating marketing of agricultural produce in any place in the market area. Sub-section (2) of Section 63 of the Act further indicates the duties of the market committee, viz., to maintain and manage the yards vesting in the market committee and regulate the manner of letting out the premises in the market yard including those belonging to market functionaries in the yard, to provide either independently or along with some other authority necessary facilities for the transport of notified agricultural produce in and to the yard and necessary facilities for the transport and marketing of agricultural produce in the yards and outside the markets and sub-markets in the market area. Its further duties are to regulate the opening, closing and suspending of trading in the yards and to carry out and enforce the conditions of the licences and to regulate the making, carrying out and enforcement or cancellation of agreements of sales, the weighment, delivery, payment and all other matters relating to the marketing in notified agricultural produces. The duties of the market committee are also to provide for the settlement of all disputes between the seller and the buyer arising out of any kind of transaction connected with the marketing of notified agricultural produce and all matters ancillary thereto. So far as surplus marketing funds are concerned, it has been provided to allow the surplus market fund at its disposal and with the approval of the Director of Agricultural Marketing provide within the market area any infrastructural facilities as may be prescribed for the benefit of the users of the market. So far as surplus marketing funds are concerned, it has been provided to allow the surplus market fund at its disposal and with the approval of the Director of Agricultural Marketing provide within the market area any infrastructural facilities as may be prescribed for the benefit of the users of the market. Further duties are to take all possible steps to prevent adulteration of goods and promote grading and standardization of the notified agricultural produce and to take measures for maintenance of market stability, by prevention of over-trading and thus decreasing the local risk attendant upon the business of selling and buying notified agricultural produce and to regulate the entry of persons and vehicular traffic into the yard vesting in the market committee and also to provide facilities for processing and packaging as well as the facilities such as provision of adequate space for direct sales by a producer and assist a producer by preparing invoices and bills in his behalf when he sells his produce to a trader without employing a commission agent and similar other duties as indicated in Section 63 of the Act. These are the services to be rendered by the market committee by establishment of markets, market yards and sub-market yards in the market area. In the case of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and Others Vs. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd., JT (1994) 7 SC 414 , Their Lordships observed and laid down as under: The fact that the Respondent-Mills may not be the direct beneficiary of anyone or some of the said facilities or does not make use of them, does not absolve it from payment of the market fees. The said machinery and the facilities are meant for the benefit of all the buyers and sellers of all the agricultural produce within the market area and it cannot be denied that they are so. Their Lordships further observed, It is further difficult to appreciate the contention that in the circumstances, the Respondent-Mills is not either directly or indirectly a beneficiary of the said machinery and the facilities as a buyer of the bamboos when the purchase is admittedly made in the market area as pointed out above. Their Lordships further observed, It is further difficult to appreciate the contention that in the circumstances, the Respondent-Mills is not either directly or indirectly a beneficiary of the said machinery and the facilities as a buyer of the bamboos when the purchase is admittedly made in the market area as pointed out above. In the counter affidavit filed by the Market Committee, it has been stated as under: (in paragraph No. 6) A perusal of the scheme of the Act reveals that whatever has been enacted under the Act including the provisions for the levy and collection of market fee is directed towards one object and one purpose, i.e., to provide better regulation of marketing in agricultural produce and towards establishment and administration of markets for agricultural produce in the State of Karnataka. The Legislature when enacted the Act empowering levying of the fee by the Market Committee established under the Act has this purpose in view. Markets have to be established by the authorities as per Sections 3 to 7 of the Act with Market Committees thereof. It is very clear that the purpose for which the market fees to be utilised, i.e., the market fee is to be utilised for the purpose and for furtherance of the object of the Act by establishment and administration of the markets for the agricultural produces. This object is beneficial not only to the producers, but also the traders and other functionaries. It is really a type of service to be rendered. Establishment of market committee at one place for marketing in the notified agricultural produces in every market area is only one object, i.e., to provide for the better regulation of marketing of agricultural produce so that the major benefits of the marketing may go to the market functionaries including the producers and traders and not to the middle men. It is in relation to the marketing in all types of notified agricultural produces. 11. A perusal of the allegations made in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit reveals that the contentions that the Respondent is not rendering the service and there is no quid pro quo is without substance. It is in relation to the marketing in all types of notified agricultural produces. 11. A perusal of the allegations made in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit reveals that the contentions that the Respondent is not rendering the service and there is no quid pro quo is without substance. No doubt, there may be special requirements of traders like the Petitioners and if there is any deficiency and is there any requirement which is not so far been made, it is always open to the Petitioners to approach the Market Committee for the necessary facilities being provided which are required specifically with relation to sale and purchase of eucalyptus business. The learned Counsel for the Market Committee also states that the Market Committee will sympathetically consider the genuine requirements of the Petitioners. 12. In view of the above, in my opinion, the grievance of the Petitioners that there is no quid-pro-quo cannot be accepted. It may not be with some mathematical accuracy, but if some facilities are there and provided in common also, the liability is there no doubt to pay the market fee, and as mentioned earlier, it is the duty of the Market Committee if there is any special requirements having nexus with the sale and purchase of the eucalyptus to be furnished, it will consider sympathetically those requirements and provide the same. 13. Thus considered, in my opinion, the present writ petitions are devoid of merits and are hereby dismissed, but subject to the above observations. 14. Thus both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed subject to the above observations.