Judgment R. M. SAVANT, J. :. By this petition filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the Notifications dated 27th February, 2006; 30-12-2006 issued by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar and the Circular dated 18-1-2007 issued by the Secretary of the Respondent No.5 Agricultural Produce Market Committee levying market fee of Rupee 1 per Rs.100/- and supervision charges of 5 paise per Rs.100/- in respect of the agricultural produce mentioned therein. The petitioners have sought quashing and setting aside of the said Notifications and the said Circular. 2. The petitioner No.1 is an Association of the traders doing business in various agricultural produce. The petitioners Nos.2 to 10 are dealing in "rice" both polished and unpolished and the petitioner No.11 is dealing in "Apples". The petitioners have challenged the said Notifications as by the said Notifications, the agricultural commodities of rice and apples is sought to be regulated by levying the market fee of Rupee 1 per Rs.100/ - and supervision charges of 5 paise per Rs.100/ - on the value of the transaction that take place within the jurisdiction of the Respondent No.5. 3. The Respondent No.5 i.e. 'the APMC' for short, is established under the provisions of the Act known as the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to in short as, 'the said Act'. The gist of the relevant provisions of the said Act are quoted hereinunder. Under Section 3 of the said Act, the State Government has the power to issue a Notification inviting objections and suggestions in respect of its intention of regulating agricultural produce within the area notified. Under section 4 of the said Act, the State Government after considering the objections and suggestions and after holding an inquiry in the manner prescribed declares that the marketing of the agricultural produce specified in the notification shall be regulated under the said Act in the areas specified in the notification. Under section 6 of the said Act on and after the date on which declaration is made under section 1 of sub-section (4), the trading of the agricultural produce mentioned is regulated in conformity with the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the APMC concerned. Under section 6 of the said Act on and after the date on which declaration is made under section 1 of sub-section (4), the trading of the agricultural produce mentioned is regulated in conformity with the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the APMC concerned. Under section 29, the powers and duties of the market committee are mentioned and under section 30 of the said Act, it is provided that the market committee may appoint one or more sub committees consisting of one or more of its members and may delegate to such sub committees such of its power or duties as it may think fit. Under section 31 of the said Act, the market committee is vested with the power to levy and collect fees in the prescribed manner at such rates as may be decided by it subject to the minimum and maximum rates which may be fixed by the State Government by a notification in the official gazette published in that behalf from every purchaser of the agricultural produce marketed in the market area. Under Section 62 of the said Act, the State Government is vested with the power to add, amend or cancel any of the items of agricultural produce mentioned in the Schedule after consultation with the market committee concerned. 4. The State Government pursuant to the decision taken by the Respondent No.5 in its meeting dated 16-9-2005 issued a notification for inclusion of soyabean, kabuli chana, green chana, chavali, mohari, rice and apples under section 3 of the said Act. The said Notification was also published in the local newspapers on 10-1-2006. Pursuant to the said Notification, the petitioners herein filed their objection to the inclusion of rice and apples as commodities which were sought to be regulated under Section 6 of the said Act. The sum and substance of the objection was that rice is hardly grown in Ahmednagar district and is mainly imported from the adjoining States. In so far as the apples were concerned, the objection was that the apples were mainly imported within the market area and, therefore, both the commodities could not be regulated under the provisions of the said Act. In so far as the apples were concerned, the objection was that the apples were mainly imported within the market area and, therefore, both the commodities could not be regulated under the provisions of the said Act. After following the gammut of process as contemplated under the said Act, the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 62 of the said Act, included rice and apples in the Schedule of the agricultural produce for regulation under the said Act vide the impugned notifications dated 27-2-2006 and 30-12-2006. After the inclusion of the said commodities of rice and apples in the Schedule by a Circular dated 189-2007, the Respondent No.5 intimated that a cess of Rupee 1/- per Rs.100/- and supervision charges of 5 paise per Rs.I00/- would be referred in respect of any trading that took place in the said commodities within the specified area. As indicated above, the said two notifications dated 27-2-2005 and 30-12-2006 and the Circular dated 18-9-2007 are the subject matter of challenge in the above petition. 5. On behalf of the Respondent No.5 Committee, an affidavit in reply has been filed by one Manikrao Mohiniraj Kale, Secretary of the Respondent No.5. It has been averred in the said affidavit that the powers under certain provisions including Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act have been delegated to the District Deputy Registrar by the State Government by a notification dated 5-9-1981 and it is pursuant to the said delegation of powers that the District Deputy Registrar has issued the impugned notification under sections 3 and 4 of the said Act. It is further averred in the said affidavit that after following the procedure prescribed under the said Act that the Notifications dated 27-2-2006 and 31-12-2006 came to be issued. It is further averred that the petitioners' contention that Doth paddy and rice could not be regulated is misconceived and without any merit as rice being a finished product is a distinct commodity than paddy which is a raw product. 6. It is further averred that the petitioners' contention that Doth paddy and rice could not be regulated is misconceived and without any merit as rice being a finished product is a distinct commodity than paddy which is a raw product. 6. On behalf of the State Government, an affidavit has been filed by one Gopal Genu Mavale, District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies in which affidavit it has been mentioned that the State Government has acted within its powers in regulating the trading of rice and apples in the market area and the occasion for levy of fees under the said Act arises as soon as trading takes place in the said two agricultural commodities. Both the affidavits go on to say that there is no merit in the petition and it, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Shri. R. N. Dhorde, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the issuance of the impugned notification regulating the trading of rice and apples was wholly without jurisdiction as the said commodities are not grown in Ahmednagar district and are principally procured from outside the State. Shri. Dhorde submitted that in so far as rice is concerned, the petitioners have been procuring it from the neighbouring States like Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and even from Delhi where the market fees are already paid on the said commodities. Shri. Dhorde submitted that at times rice is procured by the petitioners in small bags of 5 and 10 kgs. which bags carry the maximum retail price (M.R.P.) at which the said bags could be sold. Shri. Dhorde submitted that levying of market fees and supervision charges on the said bags would result in making it impossible to sell the said bags at the M.R.P. at which they are to be sold which was not permissible under the said Act d as well as the law governing the sale of the commodities at the M.R.P. price. 8. Shri. Dhorde further submitted that in so far as the challenge to the Circular dated 18-9-2007 was concerned, the said Circular having been issued on the recommendation of the construction committee of the APMC has been, therefore, issued on the recommendation of a Committee which did t not have the power to do so. 8. Shri. Dhorde further submitted that in so far as the challenge to the Circular dated 18-9-2007 was concerned, the said Circular having been issued on the recommendation of the construction committee of the APMC has been, therefore, issued on the recommendation of a Committee which did t not have the power to do so. Shri Dhorde, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, drew our attention to the various Committees constituted by the Respondent No.5 for regulating its business amongst which is a Committee known as the Regulation Committee. According to Shri. Dhorde, it is this Committee which is vested with the power to recommend the quantum at which market fee and supervision charges are to be levied. Shri. Dhorde, therefore, submitted that the issuance of the said Notifications dated 27-2-2006 and 30-12-2006 regulating the trading of rice and apples was wholly unsustainable and required to be set aside as also the Circular dated 18-9-2006. 9. In so far as the supervision charges are concerned, Shri. Dhorde submitted that since the conditions mentioned in Section 34(a) and (b) have not been complied with by the State Government, the supervision charges could not be recovered from the petitioners. 10. Shri. Dhorde, learned Counsel for the petitioners, relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 1796 in the matter of Edward Keventer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board and others in support of his submission that both paddy and rice could not be regulated. 11. On behalf of the Respondent No.5 Shri. V. D. Salunke, the learned Counsel submitted that pertinently the petitioners have not called in question the said notifications on the ground that there was a procedural infirmity in issuing them. Shri. Salunke submitted that the petitioners could not challenge the said notifications on the ground that rice and apples which are admittedly agricultural produce could not be regulated under the said Act. According to Shri. Salunke, the petitioners having impliedly accepted that there was no infirmity in the issuance of the said notifications, it was not open for the petitioners to challenge the said notifications on the ground that the said two commodities could not be regulated. According to Shri. Salunke, the petitioners having impliedly accepted that there was no infirmity in the issuance of the said notifications, it was not open for the petitioners to challenge the said notifications on the ground that the said two commodities could not be regulated. Shri. Salunke further submitted that the powers of the State Government under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act having been delegated to the District Deputy Registrar, the District Deputy Registrar in issuing the said notifications has acted within the parameters of the said Act in the matter of regulating the said two commodities. Shri. Salunke submitted that in so far as the petitioners' challenge to the Circular dated 18-9-2007 by which the quantum of market fees and supervision charges are fixed, Shri. Salunke submitted that merely because there is a wrong mention of the Building Committee in the said Circular, it would not make the said Circular bad. According to Shri. Salunke, all the Sub Committees of the Respondent No.5 have the same members and, therefore, it does not make any material difference even if the name of the Building Committee is mentioned in the said Circular dated 18-9-2007. Shri. Salunke drew our attention to the composition of the various subcommittees to demonstrate that the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the A.P.M.C. are the members of all the Sub-Committees and that the other members are also the same. Shri. Salunke submitted that the incidence of levying of market fee arises as soon as the agricultural produce covered by notification is brought within the market area and the issue as to whether it is procured from within the district or within the State or from outside the State has no relevance. Shri. Salunke further submitted that the fact that market fees have been paid at the place of origin of the said goods would not mean that the market fees cannot be charged by the Respondent No.5 if the goods in question are brought within the specified area. Shri. Salunke lastly submitted that the petitioners cases are not covered by sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act and, therefore, the petitioners are liable to pay the market fees. Shri. Salunke submitted that the petitioners have to pay the supervision charges also as the District Deputy Registrar has taken the necessary steps under Section 34(a) and 34(b) of the said Act. 12. Shri. Salunke submitted that the petitioners have to pay the supervision charges also as the District Deputy Registrar has taken the necessary steps under Section 34(a) and 34(b) of the said Act. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions. In so far as the challenge of the petitioners to the said Notifications dated 27-2-2006 and 30-12-2006 is concerned, it would be significant to note that the said challenge is not on the ground of any procedural infirmity in issuing them but is principally on the ground that the two commodities namely; rice and apples could not have been notified for regulation under the said Act. The said challenge is based on the fact that the said two commodities are not grown in Ahmednagar district but are procured from outside. In our view, the challenge to the said two notifications on the said ground is only stated to be rejected. It is not• the petitioners case that the said two commodities are not agricultural produce within the meaning of the said Act. The fact that the said commodities are not found in the Ahmednagar district cannot be a ground for challenging the regulation of the sale of the said commodities in the market area. Under the said Act, the Respondent No.5 has the panoply of powers to regulate the trading of any agricultural commodity; rice and apples being two such commodities, we are of the view that the challenge to their regulation in the market area is without any merit. 13. In so far as the petitioners challenge that both paddy and rice cannot be regulated is also without substance. In so far as agricultural produce is concerned, the said two commodities are distinct and independent commodities which, in our view, the Respondent No.5 is vested with the powers under the said Act to regulate. 14. Now coming to the petitioner's contention that some of the petitioners are procuring rice and bags of small quantities of 5 to 10 kgs. In so far as agricultural produce is concerned, the said two commodities are distinct and independent commodities which, in our view, the Respondent No.5 is vested with the powers under the said Act to regulate. 14. Now coming to the petitioner's contention that some of the petitioners are procuring rice and bags of small quantities of 5 to 10 kgs. which bear the MRP price and in respect of which the market fee has already been paid at the place of origin as also payment of market fee to the Respondent No.5 would result in the petitioners not being able to sell the said bags at the MRP and thereby violating provisions of the said Act as well as the law relating to the MRP, we are of the view that it is not open for the petitioners to urge the said ground in aid of their challenge to the said notifications. As mentioned hereinabove, the test is as to whether the agricultural produce mentioned in the Schedule is traded in the market area specified in Section 3. Once the said test is satisfied, the petitioners are liable to pay the market fee payable in respect of the agricultural produce traded in the market area. It is for the petitioners to see to it that they manage the trading of the commodities concerned in a manner so as not to infringe any law. The petitioners, therefore, cannot urge the said ground to contend that they are not liable to pay the market fees. 15. In so far as the petitioners contention that they are not liable to pay the market fees and their activities are covered by sub-section (2) of Section 6, no such ground is made out in the petition and it is for the first time across the bar that the said ground is urged. In any event, from the facts narrated in the petition, it is clear that the activities of the petitioners are not covered by clause (2) of Section 6 of the said Act. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted it would result in leaving most of the traders out of net of the said Act and thereby the regulatory measures adopted by Respondent No.5 would fall to the ground. In our view, the reliance of Shri. Dhorde on the judgment of the Apex Court cited supra is misplaced. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted it would result in leaving most of the traders out of net of the said Act and thereby the regulatory measures adopted by Respondent No.5 would fall to the ground. In our view, the reliance of Shri. Dhorde on the judgment of the Apex Court cited supra is misplaced. The Apex Court in the said case was concerned with two products namely; Frooty and Apply which were fruit drinks manufactured out of mange and apple after they have undergone an elaborate manufacturing process. Such is not the case here and both paddy and rice are independent agricultural produce, rice being a finished product. 16. In so far as the petitioners challenge to the supervision fees are concerned, we are of the view that there is no merit in the said contention. As mentioned earlier in this judgment, the powers of the State Government have been delegated to the District Deputy Registrar under the order dated 18-9-1981. The contention of the petitioners, therefore, that the petitioners are not liable to pay the supervision fees as the State Government has not issued any subject or general order under Section 34(a) and (b) is mis-founded as the powers appear to have been delegated to the District Deputy Registrar. It would also be pertinent to note that the supervision fees are an adjunct to the market fees and, therefore, once the petitioners are held liable to pay the market fees, the necessary corollary of the same would be that the petitioners are also liable to pay the supervision charges. In our view, therefore, there is no substance in the challenge of the petitioners to the said supervision charges. 17. The petitioners have challenged the Circular dated 18-9-2007 by which Circular the market fee of Re.1 per Rs.100/- and supervision charges of 5 paise per Rs.100/- have been fixed on the ground that the said decision has been taken by the buildings and construction committee of the Respondent No.5. As mentioned hereinabove, we have been taken through the record of the above proceedings in which the minutes of the general body meeting dated 7-1-2006 of the Respondent No.5 are a part. The said minutes record the varous sub committees which have been constituted for the regulation of the business of the Respondent No.5. As mentioned hereinabove, we have been taken through the record of the above proceedings in which the minutes of the general body meeting dated 7-1-2006 of the Respondent No.5 are a part. The said minutes record the varous sub committees which have been constituted for the regulation of the business of the Respondent No.5. The said sub committees are headed by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Respondent No.5 and the rest of the members are the same. We, therefore, find merit in the contention of Shri. Salunke that the name of the building committee has wrongly been mentioned and in fact, it was the Regulatory, Committee which had taken the decision and that mere mentioning of wrong name of the committee would not make any difference as members of all the committees are the same. In our view, the same is only a technical flaw. Once the two commodities namely; rice and apples were sought to be regulated by issuance of Notification under section 4 of the said Act. The Respondent No.5 has only to fix the date from which levy under the said Act would become applicable as the quantum of levy is also fixed by the State Government by a Notification fixed in that behalf and the APMCs powers are restricted to fixing market fees within the maximum limit fixed by the State Government. In our view, therefore, there is no merit in the said contention of the petitioners. 18. Resultantly, we do not find any case made out by the petitioners for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of challenge to the said two Notifications dated 27-6-2006 and 30-12-2006 and the Circular dated 18-9-2007. The petition is accordingly dismissed and Rule discharged with parties to bear their respective costs. Petition dismissed.