Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioners are engaged in the business of sale and purchase of various kinds of Agricultural produce and have been duly granted licence for the same by respondent no. 3 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Itarsi. Challenge put forth in these bunch of writ petitions is to the orders passed under Section 19 (4) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Adhiniyam 1972, whereby on a finding arrived at that the petitioners have re-sold the notified agricultural produce without payment of market fee payable on such produce, have been subjected to pay five times the market fee with nirashrit fees. ( 2. ) THE case of the petitioners is that between the period from 1. 10. 2001 to 10. 12. 2001 at different time, the petitioners purchased some agricultural produce from respondents No. 5 to 7 - who were licenced traders of respondent No. 4 krishi Upak Mandi Samiti, Dabra. These transactions, it is urged, were commercial transactions and were under clear understanding and bonafide belief that the market fees on said agricultural produce was already paid by respondents No. 5 to 7 firms during the course of first transaction taken place in the market area of respondent no. 4. It is contended that the requisite permit (anugya patra) which is required for dispatching and removing the agricultural produce separately from the market area of respondent no. 4, in duplicate, issued from the respondent no. 4. These permits, it is contended, bear the hologram, a symbol of their genuineness. It is further contended that on the strength of said permits, the agricultural produce purchased from market area of respondent No. 4 were accepted at market area of respondent no. 3 where the petitioners are registered as traders and since the agricultural produce had suffered the market fees during the course of first transaction the petitioners were granted exemption from market fees at Itarsi, market area. ( 3. ) THE petitioners were subjected to a show cause notice dated 1. 1. 2004. The show cause notice had the reference of a letter No. B-6/1-2/44/1 Part-4/ Dabra/ 929 dated 22. 12. ( 3. ) THE petitioners were subjected to a show cause notice dated 1. 1. 2004. The show cause notice had the reference of a letter No. B-6/1-2/44/1 Part-4/ Dabra/ 929 dated 22. 12. 2003 of the Managing Director, M. P. State Agriculture Marketing board, disclosing therein that the permits issued to cover the agricultural produce * purchased at market are of respondent No. 4 on verification by State Economic offence Investigation Bureau were found forged, and therefore, the exemption sought by the petitioner from the payment of market fee at market area Itarsi was not proper. Thus, by said show cause notice the petitioners were granted the opportunity to explain as to why five times market fee be not recovered along with interest. The petitioners filed their reply indicating therein that they were not instrumental in the forgery, but had entered into a commercial transaction with the traders registered with respondent No. 4, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be saddled with the penal rate on a presumption that no market fee was paid for the agricultural produce purchased by the petitioners. Respondent No. 3 after considering the reply filed by the petitioners passed the orders holding them liable for five times market fee along with interest and the nirashrit fee. The orders were individually addressed to respective petitioners. Being aggrieved the petitioners preferred representation under section 59 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 before the Additional Director, Madhya Pradesh State Agricultural Marketing board, which came to be rejected by order dated 14. 3. 2006. Challenge to the order in appeal before the State Government was also negatived by order dated 5. 2. 2008. These orders are under challenge in these bunch of writ petitions which were analogously heard. ( 4. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has raised three fold contentions: " (i) the Anygya Patra (permits) in question in respect of agricultural products (as detailed in the chart) purchased by the petitioner firm in the market area of Res. No. 3 Mandi Samiti, Dabra after submission of requisite declaration form in Form 10 and payment of market fees thereon, to its (Res. No. 3 Mandi Samit dabra) and they were submitted by the petitioner to the respondent no. 3 Mandi Samiti Itarsi within the prescribed period. No. 3 Mandi Samiti, Dabra after submission of requisite declaration form in Form 10 and payment of market fees thereon, to its (Res. No. 3 Mandi Samit dabra) and they were submitted by the petitioner to the respondent no. 3 Mandi Samiti Itarsi within the prescribed period. (i) That in the Form 10 which were sent by the Seller firm * (respondents 5 to 7) the details regarding the receipt number, and date, Vehicle number and name of the Driver etc. are clearly mentioned, hence in view of that there was no occasion for the petitioner to doubt in any maimer the genuineness of the Anugya Patra (permits) in question; (ii) that even if it is assumed that Anugya Patra (permits in question) issued from the respondent No. 4 Mandi Samiti dabra were subsequently found fabricated/forged on verification, then the liability in regard to imposition of market fees at the rate of five times in terms of the penal provision contained in section 19 (4) of the Mandi Ahiniyam, 1972 can be fastened only on such licensed traders of respondent No. 4 mandi Samiti Dabra from whom the petitioner firm had purchased the agricultural produce in the market area of respondent No. 4 Mandi Samiti and who had given the said anugya Patra (permits) in question issued from the respondent No. 4 Mandi Samiti Dabra to the petitioner at the time the said agricultural produce covered by the said Anugya patra (permits) in question was sold by them to the petitioner (i. e by the respondents No. 5 to 7 sellers Firms ) to the petitioner". ( 5. ) ON the anvil of these contentions the petitioners contend that the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1972. It is urged, that without holding an enquiry in regard to the facts of petitioners involvement in the entire happenings leading to fabrication of the permits (anugya patra), the petitioners cannot be saddled with penalty and at best could have been charged the normal market fee. In other words, the contention of the petitioners are that there being no menstrua, they cannot be held guilty of non-payment of market fee at market area of respondent no. 4. Quashment of orders is accordingly sought. ( 6. ) RESPONDENT No. 3 has filed its return and has supported the action taken against the petitioners. In other words, the contention of the petitioners are that there being no menstrua, they cannot be held guilty of non-payment of market fee at market area of respondent no. 4. Quashment of orders is accordingly sought. ( 6. ) RESPONDENT No. 3 has filed its return and has supported the action taken against the petitioners. It is contended that having entered into a commercial transaction with the traders registered with respondent No. 4, it was the responsibility of the petitioners to have ensured from the respondent No. 4 that the permits issued to them were original. A mere permission to remove agricultural produce from market area of respondent No. 4 ispo facto it is contended, is not sufficient to draw an inference that the permits issued were genuine. Placing reliance on section 19 (1) of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, viz, the m. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Payment of Market Fees) Rules, 1990, (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1990) it is contended that it is the primary liability of the trader who claims exemption from payment of market fee to establish the payment; of market fee on the agricultural produce being so re-sold in the market area of another market committee and the petitioners having failed to establish this fact have rightly been dealt with under section 19 (4) of the Act of 1972. The respondents have further relied upon the judgment rendered in M/s Prestige Exports, Indore v. State ofm. P and others (W. P. No. 399/2003) decided on 19. 11. 2003 by the indore Bench of this High Court and Mahavir Prasad V. Madhya Pradesh State agriculture Marketing Board and others (W. P. No. 70/2004) decided on 9. 8. 2007 by the Gwalior Bench of this High Court; whereby similar actions has been upheld. It is further contended that the respondent under a bonified belief that the declaration given by the petitioners are correct granted exemption from paying the market fee but on discovery of the fact that actually no market fee was paid, the action under section 19 (4) of the Act of 1972 taken thereof by the respondent cannot be found fault with. It is further urged that even after issuance of show cause notice no material is brought on record to prove that the market fee was paid at first instance on the agricultural produce re-sold in market area of respondent No. 3. On these averments the respondents seek dismissal of the petitions. ( 7. ) CONSIDERED the rival contentions; and before appreciating the same, relevant it will be to note certain provisions of Act of 1972 and the Rules made thereunder. Section 2 (e) defines "commission Agent" in the following terms: "means a person who on behalf of his principal [trader] and in consideration of a commission or percentage upon the amount involved in such transaction buys agricultural produce and makes payment in cash, keeps it in his custody and delivers it to the principal [trader] in due course or who receives and takes in his custody agricultural produce sent for sake [within the market area or from outside the market area], sells the same in the market area collects payment therefor from the buyer and remits the sale proceeds to his principal [trader]; section 2 (p) defines "trader" in the following terms: trader means a person who in his normal course of business buys or sells any notified agricultural produce, and includes a person engaged in processing of agricultural produce, but does not include an agriculturist as defined in clause (b) of this subsection. ] section 19 empowers every market committee to levy market fee, the provisions which is of relevance in the present context, in its entirety is in following terms: "19. ] section 19 empowers every market committee to levy market fee, the provisions which is of relevance in the present context, in its entirety is in following terms: "19. Power to levy market fee.- (1) Every Market committee shall levy market fee,- (i) on the sale of notified agricultural produce whether brought from within the State or from outside the State into the market area; and (ii) on the notified agricultural produce whether brought from within the State or from outside the State into the market areas and used for processing; at such rates as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time subject to a minimum rate of fifty paise and a maximum of two rupees for every one hundred rupees of the price in the manner prescribed: provided that no Market Committee other than the one in whose market area the notified agricultural produce is brought for sale or processing by an agriculturist or trader , as the case may be for the first time shall levy such market fee. ] 2. The market fees shall be payable by the buyer of the notified agricultural produce and shall not be deducted from the price payable to the seller: [provided that where the buyer of a notified agricultural produce cannot be identified, all the fees shall be payable by the person who may have sold or brought the produce for sale in the market area: provided further that in case of commercial transaction between traders in the market area, the market fees shall be collected and paid by the seller]. [provided also that no fees shall be levied upto 31 st March, 1990 on such agricultural produce as may be specified by the State government by notification in this behalf if such produce has been sold outside the market yard or sub-market yard by an agriculturist to a co-operative society of which he is a member:] [provided also that for the agricultural produce brought in the market area for commercial transaction or for processing the market fees shall be deposited by the buyer or processor as the case may be, in the Market Committee Office within [fourteen days] if the buyer or processor has not submitted the permit issued under sub-section (6) of Section 19. ] (3) The market fees referred to in sub-section (l) shall not levied on any notified agricultural produce,- (i) in more than one market area, in the State; or (ii) more than once in the same market area; if it is re-sold,- (a) in the case if (i) in the market other than the one in which it was brought for sale or brought or sold by an agricultural or trader as the case may be, for the first time and has suffered fee therein; (b) in the case of (ii), in the same market area; in the course of commercial transactions between traders or to consumers [subject to furnishing of information in such form as may be prescribed in the bye-laws by the person concerned to the effect] that the notified agricultural produce being so re-sold has already suffered fee in the other marked area of the State. (4) If any notified agricultural produce is found to have been processed re-sold or sold out of yard without payment of market fee payable on such produce the market fee shall be levied or recovered on five times the market value of the processed produce or value of the agricultural produce as the case may be. ] (5) The market functionaries, as the Market Committee may be bye-laws specify, shall maintain account relating to sale and purchase [or processing] in such forms and submit to the market Committee such periodical returns as may be prescribed. (6) No notified agricultural produce shall be removed out of the market yard, market proper or the market area as the case may be, except in accordance with a permit issued by the Market committee, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the bye-laws: provided that if any person removes or transports the processed product of notified of agricultural produce from the market proper of the market area, as the case may be, such person shall carry with him the bill or cash memorandum issued under section 43 of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (No. 5. Of 1995 ). (7) The Market Committee may levy and collect entrance fee on vehicles, plying on hire, which may enter into market yard at such rate as may be specified in the bye-laws". ( 8. ) THUS, a market fee is levied on an agricultural produce in the market area. Of 1995 ). (7) The Market Committee may levy and collect entrance fee on vehicles, plying on hire, which may enter into market yard at such rate as may be specified in the bye-laws". ( 8. ) THUS, a market fee is levied on an agricultural produce in the market area. Proviso to sub-section 1 however, stipulates that no market committee other than the one in whose market area the notified agricultural produce is brought for sale or processing by an agriculturist or trader as the case may be, for the first time shall levy such market fee. The onus, however, is cast on the agriculturist or traders to give a declaration under section 19 (3) and vide form prescribed under the Rules of 1990,viz, The M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Payment of Market Fees)SHYAM TRADING CO. , ITARSI Vs. STATE OF M. P. Rules, 1990 framed under section 19 (1 ). Rule 3 of the Rules of 1990 stipulates: "3. (i)Every Trader/processor/commission Agent of a Trader shall be required by Sub- Section (3) of section 19 make a declaration in a Form appended to these rules of the fact of payment of market fee on the agricultural produce being re-sold in the market area of another Market Committee. (ii) Booklets of declaration form (each booklet shall have fifty declaration forms, each, in triplicate) shall be supplied by the market Committee to the concerned Trader/processor/commission agent of a Trader on payment of price. Copies of the declaration form shall be printed in different colours. Trader/ Processor/commission Agent of a Trader shall give original and duplicate copies duly filled in to the purchaser. The purchaser shall submit these declarations forms in original and duplicate to the Market Committee where the Agricultural produce is being re-sold. The Secretary of the Market Committee shall retain original copy for the record of market committee and the duplicate copy shall be duly returned to the concerned purchaser after affixing the seal of cancellation. (iii) The printing of the booklet of these declaration forms shall be arranged by the Madhya Pradesh State Agricultural marketing Board, which shall duly number them and maintain proper accounts thereto and supply these booklets to all the Market committees. The Market Committee concerned shall charge Two rupees extra for each booklet and supply on payment to such trader/processor/commission Agent of a Trader who will give a requisition in writing. 4. The Market Committee concerned shall charge Two rupees extra for each booklet and supply on payment to such trader/processor/commission Agent of a Trader who will give a requisition in writing. 4. The Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi (Refund of market Fees) Rules, 1986, is hereby repealed: provided that anything done or any action taken under the rules so repealed shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of these rules. Sub-section (6) of section 19 prior to its substitution by M. P. Act No. 15 of 2003 (w. e f. 15. 6. 2003) was as under: "6. No notified Agricultural produce or any produce processed therefrom shall be removed out of the market area except in accordance with a permit issued in such manner and in such form as may be prescribed by the Board: provided that for the removal of processed goods, the licensed processor or his authorised representative may issue the permit within the limit fixed for the particular processor by the Market committee. " ( 9. ) THE proviso thus empowered the licensed processor or his authorised representation to issue the permit for removal of processed goods. The expression "processing" is defined under section 3 (mmm) in the following terms: "processing" means powdering, crushing, decorticating, husking, parboiling, polishing, ginning, pressing, curing or any other treatment to which an agricultural produce or its product is subjected to before final consumption; whereas the "processor" is defined in the following terms under section 3 (mmmm) : "processor" means a person who processes agricultural produce by manual of mechanical means; ( 10. ) THESE provisions make imperative for a trader seeking exemption to pay market fee to be sure that at first instance the agricultural produce had suffered market fee. Merely because the trader has been permitted to take the agricultural produce from a market area in itself will not be a prove that the market fee has been payed. There is no such provision as deemed payment under the statute. The concept of mens rea as ushered in by the petitioners is not attracted. In other words even if the petitioners have no role in forging the permits, he is still, liable to pay the market fee on agricultural produce if not subjected or suffered the market fee. In M/s Prestige Exports (Supra) it has held: "7. The concept of mens rea as ushered in by the petitioners is not attracted. In other words even if the petitioners have no role in forging the permits, he is still, liable to pay the market fee on agricultural produce if not subjected or suffered the market fee. In M/s Prestige Exports (Supra) it has held: "7. It is not dispute nor any attempt was made to contend by the petitioner that the 74 declaration forms submitted by the petitioner were forged one. In other words , it being an admitted fact that the forms on the basis of which the petitioner did not pay mandi fees were forged documents. The only ground which the petitioner was trying to avoid liability but the real author was those two traders from whom the petitioner purchased the soyabean. In my view, it is no defence to avoid the laibility from the concern Mandi as to whether their seller (two traders) have actually paid the Mandi fees on the soyabean which they were going to purchase from their seller. Petitioner was not new in business. They had been purchasing soyabean on regular basis in day to day business activity and hence, it was not at all difficult for them to verify and find out from the concern Mandi as to whether their seller has actually paid Mandi Fees so as to entitle them to issue necessary declaratory forms in favour of petitioner to enable them to claim exemption from payment of Mandi fees govindprasad DUBEY Vs. CHANDRA MOHAN AGNIHOTRI twice. In no case, the petitioner can claim any immunity, nor can disown their liability, not can claim any ignorance of whole transaction. As rightly held by the authorities below, it was a clear case of evasion of Mandi fees by the petitioner who submitted forged declaration forms and on that basis, claimed total exemption from payment of fees. 8. I do not agree to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner when he urged that inquiry into the allegation of fraud/forged should have been made. In my view, when petitioner did not dispute the fact (though at a later stage) of the forms being forged, there was no need to hold any inquiry. 8. I do not agree to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner when he urged that inquiry into the allegation of fraud/forged should have been made. In my view, when petitioner did not dispute the fact (though at a later stage) of the forms being forged, there was no need to hold any inquiry. As a matter of fact, it was for the petitioner to have inquired prior to submission of forms with the Mandi as to whether the forms in question are genuine or not ? No document was filed by the petitioner in the proceedings below to show that they had made all possible inquiry and were fully satisfied with the genuineness of the forms. As held supra, it was a clear casewhere petitioner was equally responsible and party to the creation of the forms because the benefit of those forms directly went to the petitioner. Such inference is discernible on the fact of the transaction. ( 11. ) THUS having regard to the entirety of facts, no case for interference is made out. ( 12. ) IN result the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no costs. Petition dismissed.