Judgment A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the respondent No.2 Director of Marketing dated 29th November, 2003 in appeal under Section 52 B of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). 2. The said appeal was filed by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a manufacturer of various perishable items, inter alia, such as animal feed, dressed chicken, including the subject item namely “Godrej Real Good Chicken”. The respondent No.1 dispatches “day-old-chicks to various farmers on a contract basis, who raise those chicks for 40-42 days by feeding the said chicks. The said chicks are reared under the complete supervision of respondent No.1 by the said contract farmers, who thereafter dispatch the same to the respondent No.1’s processing unit at Taloja, District Thane and at Bangalore. According to respondent No.1 it continues to be the owner of day-old-chicks right from the beginning till the time they are reared by the said contract farmers and even thereafter when they are dispatched by the said contract farmers to the respondent No.1’s processing unit at Taloja. Further, at the processing unit of respondent No.1, the said 40-42 day-old chicken are processed by dressing/culling/cleaning the same. This activity of processing chicks takes place within 24 to 48 hours from the arrival of the chicken at the respondent No.1's processing unit at Taloja. After processing the said chicken, it is then packed in transparent plastic/polythene bags with the markings -“Godrej Real Good Chicken – fresh and chilled” thereon. The processed product is of a perishable nature and is required to be kept in chilled/low temperature maintained at +4o to +5o Centigrade. The shelf life of this product is barely about 48 hours. 3. Suffice it to observe that the above referred activities take place within the jurisdiction of the petitioner Market Committee. The petitioner Market Committee, therefore, placing reliance on the vouchers issued under the signatures of the Authorised Signatory of the respondent No.1 in favour of different agencies, which reveal that the respondent No.1 was engaged in selling the processed chicken parts to the said agencies, demanded charges from the respondent No.1. 4. The petitioner Market Committee, therefore, placing reliance on the vouchers issued under the signatures of the Authorised Signatory of the respondent No.1 in favour of different agencies, which reveal that the respondent No.1 was engaged in selling the processed chicken parts to the said agencies, demanded charges from the respondent No.1. 4. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 is engaged in activities within the jurisdiction of the Market Committee, covered by the provisions of the Act of 1963. For that reason, the respondent No.1 is obliged to comply with the obligations under the Act of 1963. The controversy raised before us in the present petition is, however, limited to the entries found in the different vouchers issued by the respondent No.1 in respect of the said product. To illustrate, the products mentioned in the said vouchers are broadly as under: “RGC cut pieces RGC whole RGC minipack RGC boneless (Big) RGC boneless (Small) RGC legs RGC Lolipops RGC boneless, RGC Kheema, etc.” 5. The argument of the Counsel for the petitioner essentially was that these vouchers are indicative of sale of the respondent No.1’s products to third party within the market area. Further, even if the respondent No.1 in the reply affidavit has asserted that the said third party is only its contract farmer or distributor, the position emerging from the entries found in the respective vouchers leave no manner of doubt that the transaction is a sale of processed product by the respondent No.1 in favour of third parties. We accept this stand of the petitioner Market Committee. The question is: whether that transaction would attract the provisions of the Act of 1963. The authority of the petitioner Market Committee to levy fees and rates of commission (adat), fructifies only if it is a case of sale and purchase of agricultural produce marketed in the market area. By virtue of legal fiction, agricultural produce brought in the market area for the purpose of processing only but is not processed within 30 days from the date of its arrival therein is still amenable to levy fees and rates, unless contrary is proved. It will be apposite to advert to Section 31 of the Act to answer this controversy. The same reads thus: “31. It will be apposite to advert to Section 31 of the Act to answer this controversy. The same reads thus: “31. Power of Market Committee to levy fees and rates of commission (adat) (1) It shall be competent to a Market Committee to levy and collect fees in the prescribed manner at such rates as may be decided by it (but subject to the minimum and maximum rates which may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette in that behalf), from every purchaser of agriculture produce marketed in the market area: Provided that, when any agricultural produce brought in any market area for the purposes of processing only is not processed within thirty days from the date of its arrival therein, it shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been marketed in the market area, and shall be liable for the levy of fees under this section, as if it had been so marketed: Provided further that, - (a) any agricultural produce brought in any market area for the exclusive purpose of export shall be exempted for the payment of fees and supervision cost, if such exporter or his duly authorized agent present the letter of credit or confirmed order of export or confirmed export order consignment, whichever is relevant or applicable, at the time of entry of such produce in the market area, to the officer authorised in this behalf by the market committee concerned along with a declaration in that behalf, in such form as the State Government may, by order from time to time, direct; (b) if such exporter fails to submit a certified copy of the bill of lading or the air-freight bill or any other documents as may be specified by the State Government as a proof of such export, within ninety days from the date of entry of the agricultural produce in the market area, such agricultural produce shall be deemed to have been marketed within the market area and he shall forthwith pay the market fees under this section and shall also pay the supervision cost under section 34A on such agriculture produce, along with eighteen per cent interest on the total amount due and payable as the market fees and supervision cost, from the date of bringing of such produce in the market area. Provided also that, no such fees shall be levied and collected in the same market area in relation to agricultural produce in respect of which fees under this section have already been levied and collected therein or in relation to declared agricultural produce purchased by person engaged in industries carried on without the aid of any machinery or labour in any market area. (2) It shall be competent to a Market Committee to fix, with the prior approval of the State Government, the rate of commission (adat) to be charged by the commission agents in respect of an agricultural produce or class of agricultural produce marketed in the market area. (3) It shall be the duty of the buyer, commission agent, processor and trader to pay the market fee fixed immediately after weighment or measurement of the agricultural produce is done. The buyer, the commission agent, processor or trader who fails to pay the market fee as fixed above shall be liable to pay a penalty as prescribed in addition to such fees. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force or in any agreement, it shall be competent to a market Committee to recover the amount of fees along with the amount of penalty which is due to a Market Committee form a buyer, commission agent, processor or trader - (a) from the amount of deposit kept with the Market Committee by the buyer, commission agent, processor or trader, as the case may be; (b) from the Bank which gives the guarantee to such buyer, commission agent, processor or trader, and the Bank shall, on demand by the Market Committee, pay the amounts so demanded.” 6. As aforesaid, the proviso to sub-section (1) is a deeming provision. It creates a legal fiction of drawing presumption that the agricultural produce brought in the market area for the purpose of processing is marketed in the market area, if it is not processed within 30 days from the date of its arrival in the market area. Indeed, it is a rebuttable presumption. However, if it is a case covered by sub-section (1), then by virtue of subsection (3) of Section 31, it will be the duty of the buyer, commission agent, processor and trader to pay the specified market fee, failing which, may become liable to pay penalty. 7. Indeed, it is a rebuttable presumption. However, if it is a case covered by sub-section (1), then by virtue of subsection (3) of Section 31, it will be the duty of the buyer, commission agent, processor and trader to pay the specified market fee, failing which, may become liable to pay penalty. 7. From the stand taken by the respondent No.1, it would appear that the respondent No.1 imports “day-old-chicks” and distributes the same to various farmers on a contract basis who are expected to raise the said chicks for 40-42 days under the complete supervision of respondent No.1. Thereafter, the same are dispatched to respondent No.1’s processing unit at Taloja for processing. After processing, the product is then packed in transparent/polythene bags. The respondent No.1 on affidavit has admitted that the day-old-chicks are allowed to remain with the contract farmers for 40-42 days before processing. Going by the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 31, and if the said day-old-chick is to be held as agricultural produce, the respondent No.1 would become liable to pay fees under Section 31 to the Market Committee, having failed to process the same within 30 days from the date of its arrival in the market area on account of legal fiction contained in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31. 8. Interestingly, the Market Committee has not proceeded against the respondent No.1 on this basis; but on the basis of the entries found in the vouchers regarding the processed product of the respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, the products referred to in the vouchers are agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act of 1963. The said provision reads thus: “2(1)(a) “Agricultural produce” means all produce (Whether processed or not) of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, apiculture, pisciculture, fisheries and forest specified in the Schedule.” 9. No doubt, market fee can be levied only if it is a case of marketing of agricultural produce in the market area as specified in Section 31 of the Act. The expression “agricultural produce” means all produce “whether processed or not”, including of animal husbandry specified in schedule. The Schedule in the Act dealing with animal husbandry products reads thus: Animal Husbandry Products - (1) Eggs. (2) Poultry. (3) Cattle. (4) Sheep. (5) Goat. (6) Wool. (7) ----- (8) ----- (9) ----- (10) Hides and skins. (11) Ghee. 10. The expression “agricultural produce” means all produce “whether processed or not”, including of animal husbandry specified in schedule. The Schedule in the Act dealing with animal husbandry products reads thus: Animal Husbandry Products - (1) Eggs. (2) Poultry. (3) Cattle. (4) Sheep. (5) Goat. (6) Wool. (7) ----- (8) ----- (9) ----- (10) Hides and skins. (11) Ghee. 10. Indisputably, the respondent No.1 brings day-old-chicks within the market area, which is included in the Schedule as poultry. The word poultry has not been defined in the Act. The meaning of word poultry, therefore, will have to be understood in the same sense as in common parlance to mean - “domestic fowls, such as chickens, turkeys, ducks, or geese, raised for meat or eggs”. In the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, the word `poultry' means - “chickens, turkeys, ducks, and geese; domestic fowl”. 11. No doubt, the respondent No.1 may be justified in supporting the conclusion recorded by the respondent No.2 in the impugned decision that the products of respondent No.1 referred to in the vouchers issued in the name of third parties are not agricultural produce – not being live stock of chicken. But at the same time, if the day-old-chick is imported in the market area, primarily for processing and thereafter, the parts to be sold separately, it is incomprehensible as to why the liability under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31 will not be attracted, as the day-old chick is eventually processed only after 40-42 days from the date of its arrival. 12. In the circumstances, we may hold that although the products of respondent No.1 referred to in the vouchers issued in favour of third parties may not be covered by the expression agricultural produce as held by the respondent No.2, at the same time, that would not completely rule out the possibility of levy of market fee, if the petitioner were to proceed against the respondent No.1 for not processing the agricultural produce (day-old-chick, as covered by Section 2(1)(a) r/w Schedule r/w 31(1) proviso) within 30 days from the date of its arrival in the market area. The petitioner is free to proceed against the respondent No.1 in that behalf in accordance with law, if so advised, after due verification of the relevant records. 13. Petition disposed of on the above terms. No order as to costs.