JUDGEMENT Navin Sinha and Dinesh Kumar Singh JJ. 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Singh Chauhan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Administrator and the Special Officer appointed under the Bihar State Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings in Certificate Case No. 01/1992-93 before the Sub-divisional Certificate Officer, Bettiah at West Champaran under the Bihar Public Demands Recovery Act was initiated for realization of market fee in context of manufacture of sugar by the petitioner industry by sugar cane purchased by it from within the area of the respondent marketing committee and outside. (The erstwhile Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Committee). 3. He strongly relies upon a Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 93 (SC) (Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors.) holding that market fee cannot be levied on purchase of sugar cane and sale of sugar/Molasses. Following the same a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5866 of 1997 has allowed a similar challenge. He therefore submits that the certificate proceedings are not maintainable and the application may be disposed of in similar terms as the order of this Court as aforesaid. Reliance is further placed on paragraph 102, 111 and 113 of the judgment of Belsand Sugar Company (Supra). 4. Mr. Chauhan appearing for the Marketing Board with reference to paragraph 203 of the judgment submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 2.8.1999 was prospective in its operation and therefore liabilities accrued before that date shall remain alive. 5. In the present case, the proceedings in the Certificate Case were stayed on 13.7.1993. 6. The Supreme Court in paragraph 111 of the Constitution Bench judgment has clearly observed that where there may have been a restraint order for recovery of market fee by the Court, then for the period that the stay has operated and consequently market fee not paid on the transactions covered by the orders, there will be no occasion for the market committee concerned to recover such market fee from the date of the judgment even for past transactions. Clarifying the Court stated "in other words market fees paid in past shall not be refunded. Clarifying the Court stated "in other words market fees paid in past shall not be refunded. Similarly market fee not collected in the past also shall not be collected hereafter." We are afraid, we cannot rely upon paragraph 203 of the judgment in isolation to paragraph 111 of the judgment. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Chauhan does not appeal to us. 7. The certificate proceedings are accordingly quashed. 8. The matter stands disposed in similar terms as C.W.J.C. No. 5866 of 1997.