Judgment 1. In this matter the issues are actually terminal after the decision of the Supreme Court in re : Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. V/s. The State of Bihar & ors.: (1999) 9 SCC 620 : 1999 (3) PLJR (SC) 93. 2. At the outset, on the presentation of the case learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the law enunciated by the Supreme Court stands thus: Whatever has been realised as market fee re sale of sugar the petitioner cannot seek refund of it and whatever has not been realised the Marketing Board cannot realise it after the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 3. It is unfortunate that the Marketing Board desires to keep the issues alive.The present matter does not appear to be any different than the matter the Court had before it in re. M/s. Govind Sugar Mills Limited V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.: C.WJ.C. No. 9578 of 1999. Several orders were passed in this matter. These orders are dated 15 March, 2001,16 March, 2001, 19 March, 2001, 26 March, 2001,29.3.2001 and 29 June, 2001. 4. Ultimately, the Marketing Board offered an unqualified apology and acknowl-edged that the judgment of the Supreme Court applies. Thereafter the Marketing Board made a categorical statement to the effect "in other words, the Board is not empowered to collect market fee which has not been collected after the decision of Apex Court in Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (1999) 9 S.C.C. 620 : 1999 (3) PLJR 93. These matters were in the context of purchase of sugarcane by factories, sale of manufactured sugar and molasses, and the levy of market fee (Paragraph 112). 5. Today again an attempt was made on behalf of the Marketing Board and the Committee that there are matters yet to be looked into and that the Board and Committee will have their rights to realise the unrealised part of market fee. The applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in the context of sale of sugar is clearly laid down in paragraphs 112 and 113. 6. Besides, in the present case at the time of consideration of the petition an undertaking had been given on behalf of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee that it would not realise a sum of Rs. 31,70,400.80. The applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in the context of sale of sugar is clearly laid down in paragraphs 112 and 113. 6. Besides, in the present case at the time of consideration of the petition an undertaking had been given on behalf of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee that it would not realise a sum of Rs. 31,70,400.80. This undertaking as recorded in the interim order was continued on 24 November, 1997 and thereafter on 1 December, 1997. until further orders. 7. In the circumstances, what could not be realised cannot be realised as this is the law declared by the Supreme Court. Thus, the demand notice amount mentioned in annexure 18, a communication dated 14.7.1997, becomes redundant. 8. The petition succeeds.