ORDER Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the legality and propriety of the notices issued by respondents herein demanding Mandi fee and Nirashrity fee from it in respect of agricultural produce brought by the petitioner from outside the State of Chhattisgarh in the Neora Mandi area for processing. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this writ petition are as under : 2.1 The petitioner is Proprietor Firm and the business of Firm is to produce paddy from the market and then, after processing it, converted into rice. 2.2 It is a case of the petitioner that he is not dealing with the business by buying the paddy from other Mandi but the petitioner is purchasing paddy from different Mandi and after purchasing the same, it is converted into rice and broken rice. In the month from November, 2000 to January, 2001, he has purchased paddy from various towns of the State of Madhya Pradesh vide Annexures-A/1 to A/9 and for that, Mandi tax has been paid by Firm in the State of Madhya Pradesh, but surprisingly, notice dated 29-9-2009 (Annexure-A/10) has been issued by the respondent No.1 directing payment of 2% Mandi tax of the total amount under Section 19(1) of the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam 1972 (in short 'the Adhiniyam, 1972') and according to the petitioner, he has purchased the paddy for processing, therefore, he would not be liable to pay Mandi tax. 2.3 The respondents filed counter-affidavit stating inter alia that the petitioner has brought paddy from the State of Madhya Pradesh within the Mandi area of respondents for processing of paddy into rice and broken rice, as such, by virtue of Section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, the petitioner is liable to pay Mandi tax. 3. Appearing for the applicant, Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel would submit that paddy has been brought from the State of Madhya Pradesh into the Mandi area only for processing, as such, petitioner is not liable to make any payment of the Mandi tax. 4. Appearing for the respondent, Mr. 3. Appearing for the applicant, Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel would submit that paddy has been brought from the State of Madhya Pradesh into the Mandi area only for processing, as such, petitioner is not liable to make any payment of the Mandi tax. 4. Appearing for the respondent, Mr. Ranvir Singh Marhas, learned counsel would submit that since the paddy has been brought into Mandi area from outside the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, by virtue of Section 19(1)(ii) of the Adhiniyam, 1972, the petitioner is liable to pay Mandi tax, as such, writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Section 19(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1972 provides as under : '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 of 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 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.' 7. A bare perusal of Section 19(1)(ii) of the Adhiniyam, 1972 would show if the notified agricultural produce is brought within the State or from the outside the State into the market areas and used for processing, Market Committee is entitled to levy market fee at the rate as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time. 8. In case of Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. v. State of M.P., (2006) 12 SCC 468 : (2006 AIR SCW 6017) it has been held by the Supreme Court that processing of the agricultural produce will fall within the Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, the market fee would be leviable and observed as under : '21. The stand of learned counsel for the respondents that the levy is under two circumstances i.e. (i) on the buying and selling of notified agricultural produce when brought within the State into the market area (ii) on the notified agricultural produce when brought from within the State or from outside the State into the market areas. The case at hand, it is submitted, relates to the second category. 22. Had it been only that the goods notified brought into the market area are to be covered by the second category then the stand of the respondents would have been acceptable. But the further condition that it must be 'used for processing' shows that the emphasis is on end-user. In this case that makes the difference. Therefore, the appellant is correct in its stand that levy on the notified agriculture prodeuce being brought within market area where the end-user is manufacture does not attract levy of market fee.' 9. Bearing in mind the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it would appear that the petitioner has brought agricultural produce i.e. paddy from the State of Madhya Pradesh into the market area of the respondent No. 1 and admittedly, used for the processing the paddy into rice and broken rice, therefore, it would fall within the ambit of Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, and as such, the respondent No. 1 is absolutely justified in levying the market fee upon the petitioner. 10. As a fall out and consequence of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is liable to pay Mandi fee in accordance with clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 and the proviso to such sub-section. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.