JUDGMENT : DR. D.P.CHOUDHURY, J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the inaction of the opposite parties in collecting the market fee on the finished goods and the notification dated 21.11.1994 issued by the Government of Orissa, Cooperation Department on the ground that it contravenes the provisions of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as the “Act, 1956”). 2. Since the above three writ petitions have got common question of law, they are being taken up together for disposal by this common judgment. FACTS 3. The adumbrated facts of the petitioners are that the petitioner in OJC No.12958 of 1996 is an industrial unit carries on its business of manufacturing Atta, Maida, Suji etc. after purchasing wheat from different sources, i.e., from outside market, Food Corporation of India and from local market also. The petitioner in OJC No.13550 of 1998 is also an industrial unit carries on its business of manufacturing Chura (flattened rice) and Atta, Maida and Suji. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3873 of 2003 is an association of Millers and Traders and it carries on business of milling the agricultural market produces within the Jatni Regulated Market Committee area and challenges the notification dated 04.02.2003 issued by the Government of Orissa in Cooperation Department notifying Mung Dal, Biri Dal, Buta Dal and Harad Dal as agricultural produces. 4. Under the provisions of the Act, 1956 and the Rules made there under, there is fixed guidelines for declaring the market area and procedure to deal with the agricultural produces which would solely on the benefit of the agriculturists and also the procedure for collection of the market fee on the agricultural produces. 5. Be it stated that Section 11 of the Act, 1956 defines the procedure for levy of market fee on the agricultural produce and its rate. The petitioners’ units, being industrial units, carrying on business in manufacturing of Atta, Maida and Suji and in course of its business, purchases Wheat from the local market as well as from the Food Corporation of India and outside market for use/processing of the same in the unit and is not for any other purpose of export or buying and selling as such in the market area. 6. 6. It is further averred that the impugned notification from the opposite party no.2 with annexures has been received by the petitioners wherein Suji, Atta and Maida are included under the heading “Cereal” to the Schedule of the Act. The opposite party no.1 published the impugned notification in the Official Gazette and after expiry of the objection period, communicated the said notification to opposite party no.2, which was only communicated to the petitioners on 4.11.1996. Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called as “the Rules, 1958”) depicts that the fees shall be levied on agricultural produces brought from the outside market area into market for use by any industrial concern situated within the market area or for export subject to condition that a declaration in respect of the produce has been made and certified in Form-IV. But the petitioners claim that their units cannot be levied with market fee. The Schedule of the Act, 1956 and Rules made there under defines “Wheat” as the agricultural produce under the heading “Cereals” and Wheat products are not Cereal in the amendment of the Act for which Atta, Maida and Suji are not agricultural produce and cultivators are no way connected with the transaction of said items in a Market area. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 in connivance with opposite party no.1, contravening Section 3 and Section 4(7) of the Act, 1956 made the impugned notification dated 21.11.1994 vide Annexure-1. The claim that such notification is illegal and improper due to non-compliance of the mandatory provision to bring the same to the textbooks. So, the petitioners challenge such notification on the ground that Sujit, Ata and Maida, being not finished products of the Wheat, levying market fee on such products of the petitioners, is illegal and improper. Since the notification adding such product to the definition of agricultural produce and there is no proper legislative process followed, meeting such provision is not only ultra vires but also legal and proper. So, the writ petitions have been filed challenging such notification having not followed the mandatory provisions of the statute while incorporating Annexure-1. 7. Per contra, the opposite party no.1-State has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations made in the writ petition. So, the writ petitions have been filed challenging such notification having not followed the mandatory provisions of the statute while incorporating Annexure-1. 7. Per contra, the opposite party no.1-State has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations made in the writ petition. It is the case of the opposite party no.1 that under Section 26 of the Act, 1956, the State Government has got power to amend or cancel any of the item of agricultural produce specified in the Schedule. So, the Government, being competent, included Suji, Maida and Ata as agricultural produce after following necessary procedure to include the same in the Schedule of agricultural produces. Accordingly, the impugned notification was made and the opposite party no.2 was informed in accordance with law. As per Rule 48(3) of the Rules, 1958, the agricultural produce brought from the outside for the purpose of processing by the industrial concern situated within the market area or for export from such area, shall be subject to levy of market fee unless he furnishes a declaration in respect of such produce and the certificate in Form-IV to any officer or servant of the Market Committee. Since the petitioner has brought agricultural produces into the market area and processed it in the industrial unit and thereafter sold the same to purchaser like M/s.Prakash Enterprises as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition, said purchaser required to pay the market fee while levying market fee on the processed agricultural produce like Ata, Maida and Suji likewise Ata, Maida and Suji are process items of Wheat and in view of Section 26 read with Section 2 (1)(i) of the Act, 1956, the notification dated 25.11.1988 is not illegal and collection of market fee on these items as per Section 11 of the Act is also illegal and proper. Since under Section 4 of the Act, the Gazette Notification has been issued for general public and the petitioners, being traders within the public, has got every legal right to file objection failing which it can be said that issuance of notification dated 25.11.1988 was wrong and illegal. Hence, the collection of market fee on such items included in the Schedule of the Act, 1956 as agricultural produce at the instance of opposite party no.2 is correct and proper for which the writ petitions be dismissed. 8. Hence, the collection of market fee on such items included in the Schedule of the Act, 1956 as agricultural produce at the instance of opposite party no.2 is correct and proper for which the writ petitions be dismissed. 8. The Regulated Market Committee, Jatni, opposite party no.2 has also filed a counter affidavit stating therein that under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1956, the State Government is empowered to enact and include agricultural produce or goods to be levied in a specific market area of a Regulated Market Committee notified from time to time after receiving objection under Section 4(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the State Government, with due notice to the general public and local bodies, included Wheat as an agricultural produce and subsequently, the State Government, vide notification dated 23.5.1994 included Suji, Maida and Atta, Maize and Flattened Rice (Choora), Lentil (Masur), Poultry, eggs, fish and dry fish for levy of market fee for Jatni RMC. The notification was issued after observing all the formalities of preparing legislation vide Gazette Notification and communicated to opposite party no.2. Since then, opposite party no.2 issued notice to the petitioners to show cause as to why the market fee on the arrival of goods on truck number mentioned in the schedule failing which criminal action would be taken. Thereafter, the petitioner filed show cause stating that the petitioners-unit is not liable to pay any market fee and opposite party no.2 sent a reminder to produce the purchase and sale register of wheat and wheat products and its valuation so that the market fee would be assessed. 9. It is the case of the opposite party no.2 that it is a Statutory Body, being bound by the notification of the State Government, has levied market fee upon declared goods of the petitioners and the petitioners cannot raise any objection to the collection of such market fee. 10. Be it stated that the dictionary meaning of “Cereal” is any grain used for food as Wheat, Oats and as the Atta, Maida and Suji are products of Wheat, the same are coming under “Cereal” and, therefore, the opposite party no.2 is legally competent to collect the market fee on such products from the petitioners. 11. A rejoinder to the counter of opposite party no.2 filed in OJC No.12958 of 1996 has been filed reiterating the facts mentioned in the writ petition. 11. A rejoinder to the counter of opposite party no.2 filed in OJC No.12958 of 1996 has been filed reiterating the facts mentioned in the writ petition. It is stated in the said rejoinder that the Government Notification vide Annexure-B/2 series asking for payment of market fee on Suji, Atta, Maida is in contravention to the provisions of the Act, 1956 and the rules made thereunder because no opportunity was given to the petitioners to file objection when such products were included in the notification as agricultural produce. 12. Mr.Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are industrial units carrying on business manufacturing Atta, Maida and Suji from Wheat procured from outside sources. According to him, the petitioner purchased the Wheat from outside to process the same in the market area where after they used to sell the same. The State Government has not followed the correct legislative process to include Suji, Maida and Atta and different kinds of Dal under the purview of agricultural produce so as to collect the market fee when sold. He further submitted that the opposite parties have erred in law by issuing notification in 1994 with vague grounds. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the opposite party no.1-State Government has not invited objections from general public including the petitioners to amend the Schedule attached to the Act, 1956 so as to include the Atta, Maida and Suji and other Dal products under the Schedule of the Act and the notification was never put up before the Legislatures to issue impugned notification for which such Legislation lacks bona fideness and falls short of to declare the same as agricultural produce. 14. Mr.Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that Suji, Atta and Maida being finished products and not having kept the originality of the Wheat, which is admittedly the agricultural produce cannot be said to be agricultural produce including the Schedule for applying Section 11 of the Act, 1956 to collate the market fee. Similarly, he submitted that the notification to include the Dals as agricultural produce is also defective for want of proper legislature process followed as these Dals cannot be taken as Cereals so as to cover up by the Schedule of the Act, 1956. 15. Mr. Similarly, he submitted that the notification to include the Dals as agricultural produce is also defective for want of proper legislature process followed as these Dals cannot be taken as Cereals so as to cover up by the Schedule of the Act, 1956. 15. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that since the legislative process has not been followed, the Gazette Notification of the State Government showing these items as part and parcel of the agricultural produce as defined in the Act, 1956 is bad in law and suffers from vires and accordingly the same should be set aside. 16. Mr.Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submitted that as per the formality given in Section 4 of the Act, 1956, the notice inviting objection was issued and due to non-receipt of any objection from the public, the State Government added Suji, Maida, Atta and Dals in the relevant schedule of the Act, 1956 as agricultural produce. Since they are included as agricultural produce, Section 11 of the Act, 1956 directs for collection of market fee by the opposite party no.2-RMC. Apart from this, the Government has also issued notification under Sub-section 7 of Section 4 of the Act, 1956 for sale of these products as agricultural produce. So, the opposite party no.2-RMC has justifiably levied market fee from the purchaser of these products while the petitioners have sold the same to the purchaser. 17. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, supporting the contention of the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party no.1, submitted that since the products have been included by the State Government in Cooperation Department allowing the petitioners to levy market fee, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners should be rejected and the amount already paid should not be allowed to return. 18. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION The main points for consideration are as to (I) whether Suji, Maida, Atta and Dals are agricultural produce; and (ii) whether the State Government has followed the procedure for issuing the notification for including Suji, Maida, Atta and Dals as agricultural produce in the Schedule of the Act, 1956. 19. 18. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION The main points for consideration are as to (I) whether Suji, Maida, Atta and Dals are agricultural produce; and (ii) whether the State Government has followed the procedure for issuing the notification for including Suji, Maida, Atta and Dals as agricultural produce in the Schedule of the Act, 1956. 19. DISCUSSIONS POINT No.(I) It is admitted fact that the petitioners have got industrial unit inside the market area of Jatni and they bring Wheat from outside to process the same and sell the same inside the market area and the RMC used to collect the market fee from the purchasers. It is not in dispute that Dals, Atta, Maida and Suji are being sold by the petitioners in the market area after the same being processed having been brought from outside. 20. Before going further on the facts, the law on the subject is required to be dichotomized. Section 11 of the Act, 1956 has been amended in the following manner: “11. Levy of fees-It shall be competent for a Market Committee to levy and collect such fees (hereinafter referred to as the market fees) not being less than one rupees from every purchaser for every hundred rupee worth of agricultural produce marketed in the market area in such manner as may be prescribed and at such rate as may be specified in the bye-laws: Provided that the rate of fees to be specified in the bye-laws shall not exceed three percent of the value of agricultural produce sold in the markets within the market area: Provided further that no such fees shall be levied and collected in the same market area in relation to any agricultural produce in respect of which fees under this section have already been levied and collected therein: Explanation-For the purpose of this section all notified agricultural produce leaving a market yard shall unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been brought within such yard by the person in possession of such produce.” 21. Rule-48 of Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958 is produced below for better reference. “48. Rule-48 of Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958 is produced below for better reference. “48. (1) The Market Committee shall levy and collect market fees from: (a) a purchaser notified agricultural produces marketed in the market area; (b) The person deemed to be a purchaser under the explanation to Section 11 of the Act in respect of the notified agricultural produce; and (c) The persons bringing any notified agricultural produce into the market area for the purpose of processing or for export only, but not processing it therein or exporting it there from within the period of thirty days as provided in the provisos to Sub-section(6) of Section 4 of the Act, at such rates as may be specified in its bye-laws, subject to the minima and the maxima specified in Section 11 of the Act; (2) The Market Committee shall levy and collect licence fees from traders, adatyas, brokers, weigh-men, measures, surveyors and warehousemen operating in the market area at such rates as may be fixed in its bye-laws. (3) A person brining any notified agricultural produce from outside the market area into the market area, for the purpose of processing by his industrial concern situated within the market area, if any, or for export from such area, shall be subject to levy of market fee unless he furnishes a declaration in respect of the produce and the certificate in Form-IV, to any Officer or servant of the Market Committee specifically authorized by the Committee in that behalf at the time of entry of the said produce into the market area Provided that if the agricultural produce is not used by the industrial concern and is removed from the market or if it is not exported within twenty days of the purchase, the Market Committee shall levy and collect fees on such agricultural produce from the industrial concern or the persons furnishing the certificate at such rates as may be specified in its bye-laws. (4) Retail sale of agricultural produce by the producer shall be exempted from any fees. Explanation-“Retail Sale” in respect of any agricultural produce means the sale of such agricultural produce in any calendar day not exceeding the quantity or value specified in the bye-laws of the Market Committee. (4) Retail sale of agricultural produce by the producer shall be exempted from any fees. Explanation-“Retail Sale” in respect of any agricultural produce means the sale of such agricultural produce in any calendar day not exceeding the quantity or value specified in the bye-laws of the Market Committee. (5) Purchase of any agricultural produce in any calendar day not exceeding the quantity or value specified in the bye-laws of the Market Committee, by a buyer for his domestic or household consumption shall be exempted from the payment of any fee. 22. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the market fee is to be levied under Section 11 of the Act, 1956 as per the manner prescribed in Rule-48 of the Rules, 1958. It is also clear that the agricultural produce has been defined in Section 2(i) of the Act, 1956, which is quoted hereunder in the following manner: “(i) ‘Agricultural Produce’ means such produce (whether processed or not) of agriculture, forest, animal husbandry, agricultural, horticulture and pisciculture as are specified in the Schedule” 23. From the aforesaid provision, it may not be out of place to mention that the agricultural produce has notified in the Schedule if brought inside the market area for sale and purchase or processed must be exigible to market fee. 24. Section 26 of the Act, 1956 says as under: “26. Amendment of Schedule- The State Government may, by notification, add to amend of cancel any of the items of agricultural, produce specified in the schedule.” From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the State Government from time to time can add the agricultural produce in the Schedule for their transaction or processed in the market area for larger interest of the agriculturists and farmers. It is true that if there is declaration made by the traders about storing of same for certain period as revealed from Section 4(4) of the Act, 1956, the same would not beexigible for payment of the market fee. In the instant cases, no such plea has been taken. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that under no circumstances, Suji, Maida and Atta can be termed as agricultural produce as they are finished produce of Wheat which is undoubtedly an agricultural product as notified earlier. In the instant cases, no such plea has been taken. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that under no circumstances, Suji, Maida and Atta can be termed as agricultural produce as they are finished produce of Wheat which is undoubtedly an agricultural product as notified earlier. Similarly, Dals have also been added subsequently although Cereals are agricultural produce as per the definition of the Act, 1956. 25. The question now arises how to recognize a product as agricultural produce and whether the State Government can make entry of same in the list of agricultural produce arbitrarily or has got any nexus with the aims and objects of the Act, 1956. 26. At paragraphs-13, 14, 15 and 16 of the judgment in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills vs. Haryana State Board and Others; (1992) 1 SCC 418 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court have observed in the following manner: “13.The use of the word processing is also significant. Processing of vegetable products industry are normally understood in the sense they relate processing of vegetables which even after processing retain its character as vegetable. 14. Processing: Section 3(1), Marine Product Export Development Authority Act, 1972 defines processing in relation to marine products, as including the preservation of such products as canning, freezing, drying, salting, smoking, peeling or filleting or any other method of processing which the authority made by notification in the Gazette of India, specify in this behalf. Section 2(g) of the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority Act, 1985 defines processing in relation to scheduled products as including the process of preservation of such products such as canning, freezing, drying, salting, smoking, peeling or rilleting and any other methods of processing which the authority made by notification in the official Gazette specify in this behalf. Thus processing as generally understood in marine, agricultural and food products industries is an action, operation or method of treatment applying it to something. It is refining, development, preparation or converting of material especially that in a raw state into marketable form. It would be interesting to note that this Act contains a Schedule of “the agricultural or processed food products" which are to be governed by the Act which reads as follows: THE SCHEDULE (See Section 2(i) 1. Fruits, vegetables and their products. 2. Meat and meat products. 3. Poultry and poultry products. 4. Dairy products. 5. It would be interesting to note that this Act contains a Schedule of “the agricultural or processed food products" which are to be governed by the Act which reads as follows: THE SCHEDULE (See Section 2(i) 1. Fruits, vegetables and their products. 2. Meat and meat products. 3. Poultry and poultry products. 4. Dairy products. 5. Confectionary, biscuits and bakery products. 6. Honey, jaggery and sugar products. 7. Cocoa and its products, chocolates of all kinds. 8. Alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. 9. Cereal products. 10. Cashew nuts, groundnuts, peanuts and walnuts. 11. Pickles, chutneys and papads. 12. Guar Gum. 13. Floriculture and floriculture products. 14. Herbal and medicinal plants. 15. In CST v. Abdul Rehman Alladin, AIR 1964 Guj. 27 the expression "who processes any goods" in the Bombay Sales Tax was held to refer to the subjecting of any goods to a treatment or process. In Addl. CIT v. Farrukhabad Cold Storage, (1977) 2 ITJ 202 held that processing of goods means that the goods must be adopted for a particular use. The variety of acts performed in respect of goods or their subjection to a process need not be such as may lead to the production of any new article. The act of subjecting goods to a particular temperature for a long period of time as in cold storage amounts to processing of goods. On the other hand manufacture is a transformation of an article which is commercially different from the one which is converted. The essence of manufacture is the change of one object to another for the purpose of making it marketable. In Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, AIR 1963 SC 79 this Court pointed out: "The word 'manufacture' used as a verb is generally understood to mean as “bringing into existence a new substance” and does not mean 'merely' “to produce some change in a substance”, however minor in consequence, the change may be." In the same decision, the following passage from the Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases from an American Judgment was quoted with approval: "‘Manufacture’ implies a change but every change is not manufacture, and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must be transformation, a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use." The essential point thus is that in manufacture something is brought into existence which is different from that originally existed in the sense that the thing produced is by itself a commercially different commodity whereas in the case of processing it is not necessary to produce a commercially different article. 16. Processing essentially effectuates a change in form, contour, physical appearance or chemical combination or otherwise by artificial or natural means and in its more complicated form involves progressive action in performing, producing or making something. Vide Corn Products Refining Co v. Federal Trade Commission: CC A7, 144F 2d 211. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, Their Lordships have distinguished between “processing” and “manufacturing”. Processing of any product is normally understood that since they relate to processing of that material which even after processing retains the character of vegetable. On the other hand, manufacturing is a transformation which is converted. In the instant case, Suji, Maida and Atta, being the products after processing of Wheat of common commercial parlance, the Suji, Maida and Atta can be said as processed food. It is trite in law that with regard to interpretation of statute, the welfare of the statute requires liberal construction whereas at the same time, statute requires strict construction. Since the Act, 1956 is more or less describes for levying the market fee, the same becomes the fiscal statute requiring strict construction. It will not be out of place to mention here that Section 11 of the Act, 1956 is about levy of the market fee on processed or non-processed agricultural produce. So, Suji, Atta and Maida cannot be said to have got separate entity bereft of the Wheat product. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Suji, Maida and Atta cannot be on the same family of Wheat as congruous. So far as Dal is concerned, the Dals of all variety are nothing but containing the subject of Dal be it Harar, Masoor, Moong and Biri for which they are also under the same family, no character is lost at all by grinding the same or process the same except the requirement of same according to the need of the people. When the original character is not lost after being processed, the product cannot be taken to another family so as to make the concerned product out of agricultural product. 27. As Wheat and other Cereals are the agricultural produce in its raw form and the products stated above are brought out after being processed without having any separate identity except the nature of use of the same by human being, they are also same definition of agricultural produce in common parlance 28. In terms of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that Suji, Atta, Maida and Dals are agricultural produce being at par with Wheat. Point No.(I) is answered accordingly. 29. POINT No.(II) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the notification issued in 1994 was not issued in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 1956 for which Atta, Maida, Suji and Dals cannot form part of the Schedule on which the entry fee would be leviable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 vehemently opposed the move by stating that the entire process for inclusion of such products in the Schedule as agricultural produce have been observed meticulously. Before going to answer the submissions and rival submissions, it is pertinent to point out the provisions of law. Section 2(1)(i) of the Act, 1956 states that agriculture produce means such produce (whether processed or not) of agriculture, forest, animal husbandry, agricultural, horticulture and pisciculture as are specified in the Schedule. Section 26 of the Act, 1956 says that the State Government may by notification, add to amend or cancel any of the items of agricultural produce specified in the Schedule. 30. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the Schedule of the Agricultural produce is always subject to addition and alteration according to the need of the market and the people using such agricultural produce. On the other hand, the Schedule must contain the agricultural produce duly notified by the State Government. On going through the Schedule, it appears that under the category “Cereals”, wheat, paddy and rice are covered and similarly under the category of “Pulses”, Biri Dal, Harad Dal, Masoor Dal, Buta Dal and other products are covered. 31. Section 3 of the Act, 1956 is reproduced below for better appreciation: “3. On going through the Schedule, it appears that under the category “Cereals”, wheat, paddy and rice are covered and similarly under the category of “Pulses”, Biri Dal, Harad Dal, Masoor Dal, Buta Dal and other products are covered. 31. Section 3 of the Act, 1956 is reproduced below for better appreciation: “3. Notification of intention of exercising control over purchase and sale of agricultural produce-(1) The State Government may be notification declare its intention of regulating the purchase and sale of such agricultural produce and in such area, as may be specified in the notification. Such notification may also be published in the regional language of the area in a newspaper circulated in the said area or in such other manner as the State Government may deem fit.” Sub-section (7) of Section 4 of the Act, 1956 is also reproduced below: “(7) Subject to the provisions of Section 3, the State Government may at any time by notification, exclude from a market area, any area comprised therein or any agricultural produce in relation to such market area, or include in any market area, any area or any agricultural produce included in a notification issued under Section 3.” 32. Now, a conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1956 makes it clear that the State Government has got every right to declare any agricultural produce to be included in the Schedule of the Act, 1956 for the purpose of sale of such produce after necessary objections/suggestions invited from the public. Similarly, the State Government has also domain to include or exclude any agricultural produce in relation to such market area by following the same process, as required to declare any agricultural produce as part of the Schedule under Section 3 of the Act, 1956. When there is natural interpretation or natural meaning, the interpretation of statute does not require any assistance outside the language of Section 3 and Sub-section (7) of Section 4 of the Act, 1956 which are very clear. 33. Placing such ideal of interpretation, going through the concerned original file of the Government of Orissa in the Department of Cooperation, it reveals that there was a proposal by the RMC, Jatni to add Suji, Maida, Atta, Maize, Flattened Rice (Choora) etc. as agricultural produce in respect of the market area of RMC, Jatni and the proposal was made to invite objections/suggestions after draft preliminary notification is made. as agricultural produce in respect of the market area of RMC, Jatni and the proposal was made to invite objections/suggestions after draft preliminary notification is made. Such proposal has also been approved from the concerned Hon’ble Minister in the Cooperation Department on 19.05.1994. The Government Notification shows that on 23.05.1994 objections/suggestions, as per the provisions of the Act, 1956 were invited from the public for inclusion of such products as agricultural produce by allowing one month time and in both Oriya and English language, the said notification was issued. The note-sheet of the Government of Orissa in the concerned file further reveals that on 02.08.1994, the Joint Director of Cooperative Societies (Marketing) informed that no objection or suggestion has been received from any quarter by 02.08.1994 for which he has requested to issue final notification to include those products as agricultural produce. The note-sheet also shows that final notification was issued being duly approved by the concerned Hon’ble Minster of the State Government. So, necessary notification of the State Government was issued on 21.11.1994 by including Suji, Maida, Atta etc. as agricultural produce in accordance with Sub-section (7) of Section 4 of the Act, 1956 for purchase and sale in the market area of the RMC, Jatni. Thus, the entire process has been followed to declare Atta, Suji, Maida etc. as agricultural produce by the State Government for their purchase and sale in the market area of RMC, Jatni. It has been already discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs that Suji, Maida, Atta etc. as a process product of Wheat which has already been taken place in the Schedule as agricultural produce under the provisions of the Act, 1956. So, the contention of Mr.Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners that no legislative process has been followed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1956 to declare such products as agricultural produce and at no stretch of imagination, they are agricultural produce, are all futile exercise and the same are untenable. The Point No.(II) is answered accordingly. 34. CONCLUSION In the writ petitions, it has been prayed to quash Annexue-1 which declares Suji, Maida, Atta, Maize, Flattened Rice (Choora), Lentil (Masur), Fish and Dry Fish, Poultry and Eggs as agricultural produce for purchase and sale in the market area of RMC, Jatni. The Point No.(II) is answered accordingly. 34. CONCLUSION In the writ petitions, it has been prayed to quash Annexue-1 which declares Suji, Maida, Atta, Maize, Flattened Rice (Choora), Lentil (Masur), Fish and Dry Fish, Poultry and Eggs as agricultural produce for purchase and sale in the market area of RMC, Jatni. In the aforesaid writ petitions, there is no argument advanced to declare all such produce added in the Schedule as ultra vires to the provisions of the Act, 1956 except the produce of Atta, Maida, Suji and Masoor Dal. Further, it is prayed to issue direction not to collect market fee upon such agricultural produces. It has already been held that since Dals, Atta, Maida and Suji have already been included as per the request of the RMC, Jatni in the Schedule of the Act, 1956 as agricultural produce after following the necessary process of law as enshrined under the provisions of the Act, 1956, it cannot be said that proper procedure under the provisions of the Act, 1956 has not been followed. Moreover, it has been observed that they have been justifiably added as agricultural produce being tested on the touchstone of these products being process of agricultural produce which has already been notified in the Schedule of the Act, 1956. No other legal point was buttressed by Mr.Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners to take any other view than the views expressed above. Hence, the impugned notification dated 21.11.1994 vide Annexure-1 issuing for purchase and sale of Atta, Maida, Suji, Maize, Flattened Rice, Masur Dal etc in the market area of RMC, Jatni and collection of market fee on such produce in accordance with the provision of the Act, 1956 and Rules made there under are legal and proper. 35. In the result, the writ petitions sans merit for which they stand dismissed.