Judgment M.R. Shah J.—The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21/12/2009 passed by Revisional Authority - Respondent No. 1 herein in Revision Application No. 184 of 2009 as well as decision of the respondent Market Committee dated 25/09/2009 calling upon the petitioner to pay market cess/fees. It is also further prayed to restrain the respondent market committee from taking any illegal action against petitioner for unpaid amount of market cess for the period 2003-04 and 2004-05. 2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a sole proprietor and trader dealing in the trading activities of cereals and pulses, etc. in the area of respondent market committee. According to the petitioner, he purchases the said regulatory products from the wholesale dealers and most of the purchases are made from outside the area of market committee. That the said goods are sold to the traders in the market area. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that despite the fact that the petitioner was not liable to pay the market cess/fees on the sale to the traders outside the market area, the petitioner was served with the notice of levy of the market fees. The same was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing Revision Application No. 74 of 2007 before the State Government under Section 48 of the Act and the State Government rejected the same by order dated 04/12/2007. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Revisional Authority - State Government in Revision Application No. 74 of 2007, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 30143 of 2007 before this Court, which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 28/8/2008. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Revisional Authority - State Government in Revision Application No. 74 of 2007, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 30143 of 2007 before this Court, which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 28/8/2008. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 30143 of 2007, the petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 1172 of 2008 before Division Bench of this Court and the said Letters Patent Appeal came to be disposed of by Division Bench by recording the statement of the petitioner that the petitioner would make application to market committee for refund of the fees with respect to the transaction for which the petitioner sold the goods out side the market committee and such application would lie under Rule 49(1) of the Rules, 1965. The Division Bench disposed of the said Letters Patent Appeal directing the market committee to consider the petitioner’s application in accordance with Rules. It appears that thereafter the petitioner submitted the application to the market committee on 18/11/2008. Under Rule 49 of the Rules, requesting to consider his case as per the provisions of Rule 49 and the fees so paid on the purchases of the agricultural produce may be refunded on production of sufficient proof that such goods were not sold within the limits of the market committee. Thereafter on adjudication and considering the application submitted by the petitioner, the market committee wrote letter on 24/7/2009 to the petitioner and directed to deposit entire amount of market cess failing which appropriate proceedings for recovery of the same will be initiated. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said notice, the petitioner preferred the revision application before the Revisional Authority and the same has been dismissed by the Revisional Authority by the impugned order. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. Mr. Dilip Rana, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that both the authorities below have not properly appreciated and considered Rule 49 of the Rules. It is submitted that though it was pointed out that for the agricultural produce which are sold outside the market area, no market fees is leviable on the said purchases, however, the market committee is insisting for market cess, which is absolutely illegal. It is submitted that though it was pointed out that for the agricultural produce which are sold outside the market area, no market fees is leviable on the said purchases, however, the market committee is insisting for market cess, which is absolutely illegal. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily pressed into service Rule 49 of the Rules and requested to allow the present petition. 4. The petition is opposed by Mr. Champaneri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Market Committee. It is submitted that considering the fact that the goods in question have been sold within the market area, there is an element of sale and, therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the market cess on the sale. It is submitted that merely because the goods are sold to a person, who is of outside the area of market area is no ground not to levy the market cess on such transaction. It is further submitted that Rule 49 of Rules would not be applicable at all. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 5. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the petitioner purchases the agricultural produces area from the wholesale deader who are situated outside the market area and thereafter sells the same to other traders. Therefore, there is an element of sale and transaction of sale within the market area. However, only contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the goods are sold, who are carrying on business outside the market area and on that basis he is claiming refund of the market cess. Considering Rule 49 of the Rules, the contention on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Rule 49 of the Rules, reads as under :— “Rule 49 :—Recovery of Fees.— 1. Considering Rule 49 of the Rules, the contention on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Rule 49 of the Rules, reads as under :— “Rule 49 :—Recovery of Fees.— 1. The fees on agricultural produce shall be payable as soon as it is brought into the principal market yard or sub-market yard or market proper or market area (from the purchaser) as may be specified in the bye-laws: Provided that the fees so paid shall be refunded :— (i) On production of sufficient proof that such produce was not sold within the limits of market area; or (ii) If such produce is brought from outside the market area into the market area for use therein by the industrial concerns situated in the market area or for export and in respect of which a declaration has been made and a certificate has been obtained in form V subject to the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 48. 2. The License Fees payable under Rule 56 or 57 shall be paid along with the application for License but in case the market committee refuses the grant of renewal of a license, the fees recovered shall be refunded to the applicant. 6. Only an eventuality it may happen as provided under Rule 49 i.e. on production of sufficient proof that such produce is not sold within the limits of the market area and if such produce is brought from outside the market area into the market area for use therein by the industrial concerns situated in the market area and/or for export and for which a declaration has been made and Certificate has been obtained in Form No. V subject to the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 48 of Rule. 7. In the present case as stated hereinabove, there is a transaction of sale within the market area in favour of the traders and in fact the petitioner sells the agricultural produce to the traders. Merely because the traders are situated outside the market area, Rule 49 of the Rules would not be applicable and considering Section 28 of the Act, the petitioner would be liable to pay the market cess/fees on the transaction of sale within the market area. Section 28 of the Act permits market committee to collect the fees on agricultural produce brought or sold in the market area. Section 28 of the Act permits market committee to collect the fees on agricultural produce brought or sold in the market area. Under the circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the market committee in collecting the market cess on agricultural produce sold in the market area and the said decision is rightly confirmed by the revisional authority. 8. In view of the above, the petition fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.