JUDGMENT Heard. Admit. With consent arguments heard on merits. This Letters patent Appeal has been preferred by the respondent No. 1 of M.P. No. 643/89 decided on 1.7.1998, whereby the Misc. Petition preferred by the resp6ndents Nos. 1 and 2 herein as petitioners, has been allowed and the order of demand to pay Mandi Fee on the tamarind, which was being brought within the market area has been quashed. Facts material for deciding the said matter are mentioned herein below: Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the registered traders carrying on their business in agricultural produce. In their case tamarind, which according to them, they are bringing from outside the market area for the purpose of processing it. By processing tamarind they are only removing seeds from the same, then are selling it in Gujarat and Maharashtra. Their specific case was that they are neither buying nor selling the said commodity in the market area. According to them, unless the notified agricultural produce is bought or sold in the market area by a trader, Section 19(1) of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (for short hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Adhiniyam'), would not be applicable. The appellant and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on being noticed by the Writ Court, submitted their replies. According to the reply filed by them S. 19(1) of the Adhiniyam, would apply with full force. They have contended in the reply that the moment any agricultural produce is bought within the market area, it is exposed to levy of Mandi Fee, if same had not been paid at least at one point of time. On consideration of the submissions as advanced, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the petition of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 holding therein that the show cause notice (Annexure P-1) deserved ; to be quashed. It is this order, which is being challenged by the appellant in this appeal. We have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel strenuously submitted that S. 19(1) of the Adhiniyam would be attracted to the facts of the instant case as on their own showing, respondents 1 and 2 were bringing tamarind within the market area for the purpose of processing. We have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel strenuously submitted that S. 19(1) of the Adhiniyam would be attracted to the facts of the instant case as on their own showing, respondents 1 and 2 were bringing tamarind within the market area for the purpose of processing. The contention is the moment tamarind is brought or bought within the market area, the trader becomes liable to pay the market fee, even though the same is brought for processing. It has also been contended that the show cause notice (Ex. P-1) was issued in accordance with law and the same could not have been quashed by the learned Single Judge. A perusal of Annexure P-l show cause notice shows that it was issued on the ground that respondents 1 and 2 are bringing tamarind from outside the Mandi area without payment of Mandi Fee. Thus, a demand was on account of entry of tamarind within the market area. The respondents have submitted "their reply and have also filed necessary declaration forms to show that even though tamarind is being brought within the Mandi area but the same is being processed for being sold outside the State to other States, namely, Gujrat and Maharashtra. The said show cause notice neither suggests nor shows that it was issued on account of the fact that tamarind is being processed within the market· area without payment of the market fee. The declarations, which were submitted by the respondents 1 and 2 were not at an considered treating them to be of no consequence. It has been contended before us that under the provisions of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Exemption From Market Fee) Rules, 1979, if declaration are submitted before the Mandi, then exemption is bound to be granted' for those agricultural produce, which are brought within the market area for processing. A similar question had cropped up for consideration before the Supreme Court, which is reported in 1995 JLJ 701 (Administrator, Krishis Upaj Mandi, Chhindwara v. Tilakraj Juneja and others). The said judgment has also been relied upon by the learned Single Judge and it has been held that simple entry of the notified agricultural produce without anything further would not attrack the provisions of S. 19(1) of the Adhiniyam. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. The said judgment has also been relied upon by the learned Single Judge and it has been held that simple entry of the notified agricultural produce without anything further would not attrack the provisions of S. 19(1) of the Adhiniyam. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. We find ourselves unable to agree with the contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The show cause notice was rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge as the reply and the pleadings of the respondents 1 and 2 would show that they admitted that they were bringing tamarind. They further said that the same was being brought only for processing. In. the light of the discussion held above, we find, no merit or substance in this L.P.A., which is accordingly hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs.