JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters have been heard finally. 2. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs: "(a) set aside and quash the common order dated 16.03.2010 (Annexure 12) passed by the respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 12/2009. (b) direct the respondent authorities not to levy any market fee on purchase of agricultural produce including legume by the petitioner firm for being used for industrial purpose and declare that the levy of Mandi Fee on agricultural produce including legume by the respondents is ultra vires, illegal and void. (c) declare that the provisions of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 and the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 are not applicable to the petitioner firm. (d) restrain the respondents for levying, imposing, demanding and recovering market fee from the petitioner firm on the purchase of agricultural produce including legume from outside the State of Rajasthan. (e) declare that Rule 58 of the Rules of 1963 is not applicable on the petitioner firm and is ultra vires qua the industrial concerns like petitioner firm. (f) in the alternative and without prejudice the notification dated 27.04.2005 may kindly be quashed. (g) grant such further reliefs which in the facts and circumstances of this case may do complete justice to the petitioner firm; and h. award cost of this writ petition to the petitioner firm." 3. For the purpose of the present adjudication, the pleadings and facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8403/2010. 4. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the petitioner-Firm falls within the ambit of small scale industry, for which permanent registration certificate has also been issued by the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner-Firms job is to purchase the commodity from outside the State of Rajasthan and process it in its premises by different scientific ways. 5. The respondent-Agricultural Produce Market Committee (hereinafter referred as the Committee) has been constituted as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (henceforth to be referred to as the Act of 1961). The respondent-Committee is a Marketing Committee and is a Body Corporate. 5. The respondent-Agricultural Produce Market Committee (hereinafter referred as the Committee) has been constituted as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (henceforth to be referred to as the Act of 1961). The respondent-Committee is a Marketing Committee and is a Body Corporate. The Market Committee is required to manage the market, principal market yard and sub market yard in the market area, for which it was constituted, and it controls and regulates running of the market in the interest of agriculturists and traders in the market. 6. As per the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1963), a license is required to be obtained for carrying on business. Such license is to be issued by a Committee in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1961. As per the pleadings made in the writ petition, the petitioner-Firm has obtained a license from the respondent-Committee, although as per the petitioner-Firm, it is not required to obtain such license. In this regard, reference of Section 17 of the Act of 1961 has been made, and the same is reproduced as hereunder: "Section 17 - Power to collect market fees - The market committee shall collect market fees from the licensees in the prescribed manner on agricultural produce bought or sold by them in the market area at such rate as may be specified by the State Government, by notification in the official Gazette, subject to a maximum of [Rs. 2/-] per rupees one hundred worth of agricultural produce." 7. Reference of Rule 58 of the Rules of 1963 has also been made, which is also reproduced herein-below:- "58. Market area Cess (1) A market area committee shall collect cess on agricultural produce bought and sold in the market area at such rate as may be specified [by the Government by way of notification: Provided that no cess shall be levied on any such notified agricultural produce on which cess has been levied in any market area if the seller or the purchaser of such notified produce files a declaration in Form XI, in the prescribed manner, that no notified agricultural produce, cess has already been levied in any other market area of the State. Explanation - (a) For the purpose of this rule a sale of agricultural produce shall be deemed to have taken place in a Market area if it has been weighed or measured or surveyed by a licensed weighman, measurer or surveyor in the [Market area] for the purpose of sale, notwithstanding the fact the property in the agricultural produce has by reason of such sale, passed to a person in place outside the [market area]. (b) Further for the Purpose of this rule, all notified agricultural produce taken out or proposed to be taken out of the [market area] shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be bought and sold within such market area. (2) The cess levied as per sub-rule (1) shall not be levied more than once on agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area. (3) The market area committee shall also levy and collect licence fee from traders, brokers, weighman, measurer, surveyors, warehousemen and other persons operating in the [market area] as provided in the bye-laws. (4) No cess shall be levied on agricultural produce brought in the market area from outside the State for the purpose of export and in respect of which a declaration has been made and a certificate has been obtained in Form-V. Provided that the burden of proof regarding source of agricultural produce brought from outside the State shall be on the exporter: Provided also that if such agricultural produce brought into the market area for export outside the State is not exported or removed therefrom, before the expiry of twenty days from the date on which it was so brought, the market agricultural produce from the person bringing the produce into the market area at such rates as may be specified in the bye-laws. (5) The seller who is himself the producer of the agricultural produce offered for sale and the buyer who buys such produce for his own private and/or household use, shall be exempted from payment of any cess under this Rule." 8. A bare reading of Section 17 of the Act of 1961, as quoted above, and which is a charging section, discloses that a market committee is empowered to collect market fee from the licensees in the prescribed manner, but only to the extent that the agricultural produce is bought or sold by the licensee in the market area. 9. A bare reading of Section 17 of the Act of 1961, as quoted above, and which is a charging section, discloses that a market committee is empowered to collect market fee from the licensees in the prescribed manner, but only to the extent that the agricultural produce is bought or sold by the licensee in the market area. 9. The pleaded facts would further reveal that the respondent-Committee is collecting market fee from the licensees on agricultural produce bought and sold by them in the market area, as per aforementioned Rule 58 of the Rules of 1963. 10. It has also been pleaded in the writ petition that neither Rule 58 of the Rules of 1963 nor any other Rule can expand the permissible limits of the incidents to such levy of fees. Clause 4 of Rule 58 is an exception to the general rule though it has not been provided in the form of proviso to Rule 58 nor has been provided separately. This clause carves out two meanings, firstly, if an agricultural produce bought from outside market area into the market is brought for use in the industrial concern situated in the market area, then no fee can be charged on it. Secondly, if the same is brought for export, then the fee cannot be charged, provided that a declaration is made and a certificate is obtained, and it is exported or removed within 20 days. A declaration and a certificate, in terms of Rule 58 of the Rules of 1963, are required to be submitted. Thus, sub-clause (4) only carves out an exception to the generality of liability to pay market fee and exempts the industrial concerns if they bring the agricultural produce for their use or for export. In terms of the said provision, as pleaded, the petitioner-Firm is also regularly filing a declaration i.e. a declaration as per Rule 58(4) of the Rules of 1963. 11. The pleadings made in the writ petition further reveal that vide order/circular dated 29.02.1992, which was forwarded by the State of Rajasthan on 07.03.1992, the Government had exempted all agricultural produces from the market fee, if the same are purchased by the industrial concerns from outside the State of Rajasthan for industrial use. 12. 11. The pleadings made in the writ petition further reveal that vide order/circular dated 29.02.1992, which was forwarded by the State of Rajasthan on 07.03.1992, the Government had exempted all agricultural produces from the market fee, if the same are purchased by the industrial concerns from outside the State of Rajasthan for industrial use. 12. As pleaded in the writ petition, the aforementioned circular is an explanation of Rule 58(4) of the Rules of 1963, which suggests that in case an agricultural produce is brought from the State of Rajasthan and no sale and purchase take place in the mandi area, then market fee is not to be levied. On this pretext, as averred in the writ petition, the petitioner- Firm was seeking exemption and the respondent- Committee was granting exemption. However, as per the petitioner-Firm, it was not even required to file any declaration, as no market fee is leviable on the paddy so purchased, as the same is being brought for industrial purpose. 13. The respondent-State thereafter issued a notification on 27.04.2005, whereby sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 of the Rules of 1963 has been deleted, and as pleaded in the writ petition, by way of the said notification, the State Government has made it clear that the petitioner-Firm and the like Firms, are now not entitled to any exemption from market fee. 14. An averment has also been made in the writ petition that the bye-laws of respondent No. 3 provides for a procedure for taking Mandi Fee and to collect the same. 14. An averment has also been made in the writ petition that the bye-laws of respondent No. 3 provides for a procedure for taking Mandi Fee and to collect the same. Bye-laws 16 and 17 being relevant, are reproduced as hereunder:- ^^16- e.Mh 'kqYd & vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 ,oa fu;e 58 ds vUrxZr lfefr e.Mh {ks= esa Ø; vkSj foØ; dh xbZ d`f"k mit ij jkT; ljdkj }kjk le;≤ ij fu/kkZfjr e.Mh 'kqYd yxk;sxh ,oa olwy djsxhA ¼1½ jkT; ds vU; e.Mh {ks= ls Ø;@foØ; gsrq ykbZ xbZ ,slh foKfIr d`f"k ftUlksa ftuesa Ø;&foØ; ij jkT; dh vU; e.Mh esa e.Mh 'kqYd iwoZ esa Hkqxrku dj fn;k x;k gS vkSj d`f"k mit e.Mh lfefr ds {ks= esa iqu% Ø;@foØ; dh tkrh gS rks ml ij iqu% e.Mh 'kqYd laxzg ugha fd;k tkosxk] c'krsZ dh vk;krdrkZ vuqKk i=/kkjh mDr d`f"k mit ds ckjs esa fu;e 581 ds rgr foØsrk O;kikjh ls gLrk{kfjr foØ; i= ÁkIr dj e.Mh lfefr dk;kZy; esa ÁLrqr dj nsA ,slk foØ; i= d`f"k mit ds vken ds vkxkeh ekg dh 10 rkjh[k rd foxr ekg dh d`f"k ftUlksa ds ekfld fjVuZ ds lkFk e.Mh lfefr dk;kZy; esa ÁLrqr djsxk] rRi'pkr foØ; i= ,d :i;k Áfrfnu Áfr foØ; i= ds fglkc ls foyEc 'kqYd ds lkFk Lohdkj fd;k tk ldsxkA ,slk dksbZ O;kikjh d`f"k mit ds vkxe ds vkxkeh ekg dh 20 rkjh[k rd foØ; i= dh Áfr ÁLrqr ugha djrk gS rks mls fu;e 581 dk mYya?ku dk nks"kh ekudj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 363 ds rgr nf.Mr fd;k tkosxkA ijUrq ;fn ,slh d`f"k mit ij iwoZ esa e.Mh 'kqYd pqdk gqvk ugha ik;k tkrk gS rks mls ml d`f"k mit ij fu/kkZfjr nj ,oa ÁfØ;k ls e.Mh 'kqYd e.Mh lfefr esa tek djkuk gksxkA ¼2½ ^^d** oxZ nyky ,oa O;kikjh ysu&nsu esa e.Mh 'kqYd dh jkf'k dk mYys[k foØ; iphZ esa djsaxs vkSj tSlk mifof/k;ksa esa fu/kkZfjr fd;k gqvk gS mlds vuqlkj e.Mh lfefr dks e.Mh 'kqYd foÁsf"kr djsaxsA e.Mh 'kqYd dh jkf'k ckn esa ^^d** oxZ nyky vFkok O;kikjh }kjk Øsrk ls foØ; jkf'k ds fy, olwy dj yh tkosxh vkSj Øsrk ds fy, ;g Hkh vko';d gksxk fd og foØ; jkf'k ds lkFk 'kqYd dh jkf'k ^^d** oxZ nyky dks ;k O;kikjh dks pqdk nsA ¼3½ lh/ks foØ; dh n'kk esa foØ; iphZ cukus dk drZO; rFkk mifof/k;ksa esa fu/kkZj.k ds vuqlkj e.Mh 'kqYd dh jkf'k dks e.Mh lfefr esa foÁsf"kr djus dk drZO; Øsrkvksa dk gksxkA ¼4½ ,slh fLFkfr esa tcfd Øsrk dh f'kuk[r u gks lds rks e.Mh 'kqYd lfefr dks foØsrk }kjk gh tek djok;k tk;sxkA ¼5½ ;fn dksbZ O;fDr jkT; ds ckgj ls e.Mh {ks= esa vkS|ksfxd mi;ksx gsrq ;k 20 fnu dh vof/k esa fu;kZr gsrq d`f"k mit ;k vk;kr djrk gS rks ?kks"k.kk i= ds lkFk mls fcy dh Áfr Hkh nsuh gksxhA 17- e.Mh 'kqYd laxzg djus dk rjhdk %& ¼1½ tc d`f"k mit e.Mh {ks= esa Ø; vFkok foØ; gksrh gS rks ^^d** oxZ nyky@O;kikjh ;k lh/ks foØ; dh fLFkfr esa Øsrk@foØsrk ysu&nsu ds fnu ugha muds }kjk cukbZ xbZ foØ; iphZ esa ns; e.Mh 'kqYd dh jkf'k dk mYys[k djsxk vkSj e.Mh 'kqYd dh jkf'k dk vyx ls viuh cfg;ksa esa ys[kk j[ksxkA ftlds fujh{k.k ds fy, lfpo iw.kZ :i ls vf/kd`r gksxsaA bl Ádkj laxzg dh xbZ e.Mh 'kqYd dh jkf'k dks ,d fooj.k ds lkFk ifjf'k"V la[;k 4 esa ÁR;sd ekg dh 7 rkjh[k ;k blls iwoZ e.Mh lfefr dk;kZy; esa tek gks tkuk pkfg,A ¼2½ mijksDr frfFk ds i'pkr nks"kh O;fDr ls ns; e.Mh 'kqYd dh iw.kZ jkf'k ij ÁFke rhu ekg rd dh vof/k esa 2 Áfr'kr Áfr ekg dh nj ls C;kt lfgr e.Mh 'kqYd olwy fd;k tkosxkA ¼3½ ;fn ,slk dksbZ O;fDr tks fu/kkZfjr frfFk ls rhu ekg rd Hkh fu/kkZfjr C;kt ds lkFk e.Mh 'kqYd tek ugha djkrk gS rks og ns; jkf'k lEcaf/kr foRrh; o"kZ dh lekfIr rd 3 Áfr'kr Áfrekg C;kt ds lkFk olwy dh tkosxh] ijUrq fdlh Hkh o"kZ dh ekg tuojh ,oa Qjojh ls lEcaf/kr ns; e.Mh 'kqYd dh jkf'k fu/kkZfjr frfFk rd tek u djk;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa vkxkeh rhu ekg rd dh vof/k rd 2 Áfr'kr Áfr ekg dh nj ls C;kt ds lkFk tek dh tk ldsxhA ¼4½ dksbZ O;fDr ;fn mifof/k la[;k 171 esa fu/kkZfjr frfFk rd ns; e.Mh 'kqYd tek ugha djkrk gS rks e.Mh lfefr nks"kh O;fDr ds fo:} vf/kfue; ,oa fu;eksa ds rgr Áko/kkuksa ds vuq:i cdk;k jkf'k dh olwyh ,oa fd;s x;s mYya?ku ds fy, mi;qDr dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, l{ke gksxh vkSj ,slh cdk;k jkf'k olwyh gksus rd ,slh jkf'k ij 3 Áfr'kr dh nj ls C;kt Hkh ns; gksxkA ¼5½ foyEc ls tek fd;s tkus okys e.Mh 'kqYd ij C;kt dh x.kuk fcuk C;kt e.Mh 'kqYd laxzg djus dh fu/kkZfjr vfUre frfFk ds vxys fnol ls dh tk;sxhA ¼6½ ^^d** ;fn dksbZ d`f"k mit fdlh O;kikjh ;k ^^d** oxZ nyky ds }kjk fu;kZr ls vfHkÁk; ls jkT; ds ckgj ls e.Mh {ks= ds Hkhrj ykbZ tkrh gS rks og ,slh mit ds vken ds vkxkeh dk;Z fnol ij e.Mh lfefr dks fu;e 584 ds rgr fu/kkZfjr Ái= esa ,d ?kks"k.kk&i= ÁLrqr djsxk fd og d`f"k mit oLrqr% jkT; ls ckgj ls ykbZ xbZ gS] vkSj bls fl) djus dk mRrjnkf;Ro vk;krdrkZ dk gksxkA ;fn ,slh d`f"k mit e.Mh {ks= esa vkxe ds 20 fnol ds vUnj e.Mh {ks= ls fu;kZr ugha dh tkrh gS rks ^^d** oxZ nyky ;k O;kikjh ml mit ds chtd ds vk/kkj ij ,d fopj.k i= rS;kj djsaxs] ftls e.Mh 'kqYd dh jkf'k ds lkFk mDr 20 fnu dh lekfIr ds i'pkr iM+us okys e.Mh 'kqYd laxzg fnolksa esa lfefr dk;kZy; esa foÁsf"kr fd;k tkosxkA bl vof/k ds lekfIr gksus ds i'pkr mifof/k la[;k 171 ls 4 esa fu/kkZfjr ÁfØ;k vuqlkj tek djkuk gksxkA ¼6½ ^^[k** ;fn e.Mh {ks= ds Hkhrj ykbZ gqbZ d`f"k mit 20 fnu ds vUnj e.Mh {ks= ls fu;kZr dj nh tkrh gS rks mldh lwpuk fu;kZrdrkZ }kjk e.Mh lfefr dks fu;kZr dh vkxkeh dk;Z fnol dks nh tkosxhA ¼7½ dksbZ vuqKk i=/kkjh O;kikjh tks jkT; ds ckgj ls e.Mh {ks= esa foØ; djus ds fy, dksbZ d`f"k mit ykrk gS rks og ,slh mit dh vkxe dh lwpuk ifjf'k"V la[;k 5 esa e.Mh lfefr dk;kZy; esa nwljs fnu 5 cts rd ÁLrqr djsxkA ,slk u fd, tkus ij vf/kdre ,d lIrkg dh vof/k rd 10 iSls Áfrfnu ds fglkc ls foyEc 'kqYd fy;k tk;sxkA bl vof/k ds lekIr gksus ij fu;eksa ,oa mifof/k;ksa esa fufgr Áko/kkuksa ds rgr dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA ,slh mit ds vken ds i'pkr iM+us okys laxzg fnolksa esa mijksDr Ádkj ls chtd ds vk/kkj ij e.Mh 'kqYd lfefr dk;kZy; esa tek djk;k tkosxkA ¼8½ e.Mh {ks= ds ckgj ls ijUrq jkT; dh lhek ls gh dksbZ vkS|ksfxd laLFkk vkS|ksfxd Á;kstu gsrq dksbZ d`f"k mit Ø; dj vk;kr djrh gS rks mls Hkh ,slh d`f"k mit ds e.Mh 'kqYd Hkqxrku lqnk gksus dk ?kks"k.kk i= mifof/k la[;k 161 ds Áko/kkukuqlkj e.Mh lfefr dk;kZy; dks ÁLrqr djuk gksxkA ijUrq dksbZ] vkS|ksfxd leqRFkku jkT; ds Hkhrj ls e.Mh 'kqYd pqdk gqvk gksus ds Áek.k Lo:i foØ; i= ÁLrqr ugha djrk gS rks fu;e 581 ds mYya?ku ds fy, ftEesnkj le>k tkosxk vkSj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 363 ds v/khu tqekZus ls nf.Mr fd;k tkosxkA** 15. Thereafter, a direction came to be issued to amend Bye-law 17(7) with immediate effect, and as per the said amendment, bye-law 17(7) of the respondent-Committee stood as under:- ^^17¼7½ dksbZ vuqKki= /kkjh O;kikfj;ksa ^^d** oxZ nyky ;k vkS|ksfxd laLFkku tks jkT; ds ckj ls e.Mh {ks= esa foØ; ;k ÁlaLdj.k djus ds fy, dksbZ d`f"k mit ykrk gS rks og ,slh mit ds vkxe dh lwpuk ifjf'k"V la[;k 5 esa e.Mh lfefr dk;kZy; esa nwljs fnu 'kke 5 cts rd ÁLrqr djsxk ,slk u fd, tkus ij vf/kdre ,d lIrkg dh vof/k rd ikap :i;s Áfrfnu ds fglkc ls foyEc 'kqYd fd;k tkosxkA bl vof/k ds lekIr gksus ij vf/kfu;e] fu;eksa ,oa mi&fof/k;ksa esa fufgr Áko/kkuksa ds rgr dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA ,slh mit ds vken ds i'pkr iM+us okys laxzg fnolksa esa mijksDr Ádkj ds chtd ds vk/kkj ij e.Mh 'kqYd e.Mh lfefr dk;kZy; esa tek djok;k tkosxkA** 16. As per the pleadings made in the writ petition, the aforementioned amendment in the bye-laws was contrary to the process prescribed therefor, as provided in Section 37 of the Act of 1961, inasmuch as it is not clear as to whether the previous sanction of the competent authority was obtained before making such amendment or not, and that, the amendment was made only in pursuance of the notification dated 27.04.2005. 17. It has further been averred in the writ petition that by way of the said notification dated 27.04.2005, the petitioner-Firm was required to pay Mandi Fee on the commodity purchased from outside the State for the industrial purpose, inspite of the fact that the same is not applicable to the industrial concerns like the petitioner-Firm, since the petitioner- Firm is an industry. Thereafter, the respondents have issued a notice in the local newspapers and directed the traders to submit market fee, as Rule 58(4) of the Rules of 1963 stood deleted. 18. The petitioner-Firm has further made an averment in the writ petition that the entire position was narrated to the officials of the respondent No. 3, while submitting that the petitioner-Firm is not liable to pay any Mandi Fee. However, the respondent No. 3 expressed its inability to do anything, in view of issuance of the aforementioned notification dated 27.04.2005 by the State Government. However, the respondent No. 3 expressed its inability to do anything, in view of issuance of the aforementioned notification dated 27.04.2005 by the State Government. Further, respondent No. 3 started raising demands verbally from the petitioner-Firm to pay market fee, whereupon a legal notice dated 21.04.2006, on behalf of the petitioner, was sent to the respondents. 19. Thereafter, the petitioner-Firm alongwith others preferred writ petitions, lead petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5230/2006 alongwith analogous petitions, before this Hon'ble Court, wherein this Hon'ble Court vide a common order dated 05.02.2009, while deciding the petitions, directed the petitioners to make a representation to the respondent No. 2 with all grievances, who was required to decide the same within a period of 60 days. 20. The petitioner-Firm immediately submitted a representation to the respondent No. 2, alongwith all the details on the basis of which, the petitioner-Firm is not required to pay mandi fee. 21. Thereafter, a reply came to be filed by the respondent No. 3 to the representation as filed by the petitioner-Firm stating therein that the petitioner-Firm was required to pay the market fee, as it is engaged in the purchase of agriculture produce. 22. During the proceedings pending before the respondent No. 2, as averred by the petitioner-Firm, the respondent No. 2 suggested the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner- Firm and the like, are not liable to pay any mandi fee on the transaction undertaken by them. The respondent No. 2 however, without considering the relevant aspects of the matter, rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner Firm. 23. As the facts pleaded in the petition would further show, the Director of the respondent-Board himself has communicated to the Government vide a letter in the form of recommendation that no mandi fee can be imposed over the transaction, like the present one. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioners made a limited submission that the matter has gone upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has already adjudicated the dispute and remanded the matter back to this Hon'ble Court for limited adjudication. 25. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioners made a limited submission that the matter has gone upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has already adjudicated the dispute and remanded the matter back to this Hon'ble Court for limited adjudication. 25. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the singular question of law, which is common to all these writ petitions, that went for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court, was as to whether the petitioners herein, who are purchasing the material, which is admittedly an agricultural produce, and bringing the same to the area known as market area covered under the provisions of the Act of 1961 and the Rules of 1963, are liable to pay the market fee on the said produce or not. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that admittedly, the legal position is that if the agricultural produce is brought to the market area and sold there, then market fee is payable thereon. 27. The question to be decided in these petitions is whether the goods were bought and sold at the market place. Learned counsel for the petitioners maintain that the sale of the agricultural produce took place and was concluded outside the State of Rajasthan, and before these goods were brought to the market area, they had already become the owner thereof, by virtue of the sale outside the State, and therefore, the petitioners are not liable to pay any market fee. 28. On the other hand, learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents, including the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, submitted that the sale was fructified only after the goods were brought to the market area and the ownership in the goods passed from the sellers to the petitioners herein, at the time when the goods were delivered in the market area. Thus, the respondents claim is that the market fee is payable by the present petitioners. 29. Counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder arguments has shown to this Court the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, Civil Appeal No. 8277/2017 decided on 09.06.2017, which reads as under:- "(20) A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that title in goods is transferred from the seller to buyer only on the sale of goods. As to when such a sale fructifies and the property passes is to be ascertained from the intention of the parties having regard to the terms of the contract. If no such intention can be gathered from the terms of the contract, the property in goods passes where the goods are in a deliverable state and there is unconditional contract for sale of specific goods. (21) In the case of Arihant Udhyog, intention is to be gathered from the terms and conditions, which have already been noted above. It mentions that responsibility of the seller ceases as soon as goods are delivered, which means the seller remained responsible till the delivery of goods. Therefore, intention was to retain the title in the goods till its delivery inasmuch as till that time it is the seller who was responsible for the goods. This condition would clearly spell out that if the goods are destroyed or lost in transit, i.e. before their delivery, responsibility will be that of the seller. Such a responsibility can be only if the ownership remains of the seller. No other document was produced by Arihant Udhoyg which could demonstrate the intention that property in goods passed in their favour before these goods were delivered. (22) Thus, insofar as judgment of the High Court in Arihant Udhyog is concerned, no fault can be found therein. The appeal filed by Arihant Udhyog is, accordingly, dismissed. (23) Having said so, we find that the High Court has passed impugned common judgment deciding as many as fifteen writ petitions. Other writ petitions are also dismissed taking into consideration the terms and conditions of the contract of sale between Arihant Udhyog and its seller. This is clearly a wrong approach. In each case the High Court was supposed to go into the contract for sale between the licensees and their sellers and in view of the terms and conditions contained in each of the case, the High Court was supposed to decide as to whether in their cases also ownership in goods transferred only in the market area within the State of Rajasthan. (28) However, as mentioned above, it is to be first ascertained whether agricultural produce was bought and sold in the market area or not is the question which needs to be determined in each case after applying the principles of law as enumerated above. (28) However, as mentioned above, it is to be first ascertained whether agricultural produce was bought and sold in the market area or not is the question which needs to be determined in each case after applying the principles of law as enumerated above. The High Court would be required to ascertain this on the basis of terms and conditions of sale in each case and that would determine the fate of each of the writ petitions filed by the appellants. This exercise is not done and after dealing with the case of Arihant Udhyog, other writ petitions are also dismissed. Thus, except Arihant Udhyog, where we have upheld the judgment of the High Court, orders of the High Court in other cases are set aside and writ petitions are remanded back to the High Court to decide them in the light of the law stated by us in this judgment." 30. In his rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the limited question, which is to be decided by this Court is that once the Hon'ble Apex Court has held the modus operandi that if the sale fructifies and the property passes is to be ascertained from the intention of the parties having regard to the terms of the contract, then only it could found out as to whether the market fee was leviable or not. 31. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra) submitted that if no such intention can be gathered from terms of the contract, the property in the goods passes where the goods are in a deliverable state and there is an unconditional contract of the sale of specific goods. 32. 32. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further shown to this Court, from the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra) that Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in the case of M/s. Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra), intention was to be gathered from the terms and conditions, which were noted, and it also further mentioned that the responsibility of the seller had ceased as soon as the goods were delivered, which means the seller remained responsible till the delivery of the goods, and therefore, the intention was to retain the title in the goods till its delivery inasmuch as till that time it is the seller who was responsible for the goods. 33. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the reason of remand of the other matters was that all other matters were based upon relationship between the M/s. Arihant Udhyog and its seller, whereas the High Court was supposed to go into each contract for sale between the licensees and their sellers, and in view of the terms and conditions contained in each case, the High Court was supposed to decide as to whether in their cases also ownership of goods transferred in the market area within the State of Rajasthan or outside the State of Rajasthan where the purchase was initiated. 34. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts that the law has already been settled in the matter of M/s. Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; but in the remand matters, the limited question to be ascertained by this Court was, by applying the principles laid down in the law enumerated in M/s. Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra), the High Court was required to ascertain the terms and conditions of sale in each case, and after determining the fate of each writ petition, the same was to be disposed of in accordance with the law laid down in M/s. Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra). 35. In the matter of M/s. Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra), the earlier judgment was of the High Court, which has been upheld, whereas rest of the matters have been remanded back for the limited adjudication. 36. 35. In the matter of M/s. Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra), the earlier judgment was of the High Court, which has been upheld, whereas rest of the matters have been remanded back for the limited adjudication. 36. Thus, the limited contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that there are very many bills of each of the petitioners, and after seeing the conditions of the bills, which would reflect as to when the ownership/title was passed on from the seller to the buyer whether it was outside the State or within the State, then only the liability could be decided in accordance with the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court as well the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra). 37. Learned counsel for the respondents has further demonstrated from the bills submitted by one of the parties that all those bills required to be examined physically by the authorities concerned and would require the authorities to apply their mind thereafter, in accordance with law. 38. In his rejoinder arguments, petitioner strongly opposed examining of all bills for the purpose of claiming levy of market fee. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in M/s. Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra), only one bill was examined by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and therefore, in each case, only the one sample bill, which has provided, has to be examined. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in his rejoinder arguments, also submitted that the other bills might have been lost by their respective parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in M/s. Arihant Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra) that the condition of sale in each case was to be decided on the bills, but only one bill or the symbolic bill needs to be examined. 39. Learned counsel for the respondent in response to such arguments made on behalf of the petitioners submitted that if the examination has to be made, then it has to be for the complete transaction, and not for one bill, as one bill alone will not show the relationship between the purchaser and the seller for the whole transaction, for which market fee is sought to be exempted. 40. 40. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the law in the matter of M/s. Arihant Udyog (supra), as reproduced hereinabove, has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and thus, at this stage, all these matters taken up are only for the purpose of examining the bills, which would show, in relation to the transaction, as to whether the purchase was completed outside the State of Rajasthan or has been done within the State of Rajasthan. 41. This Court finds that only the language in the contract/bill would show, through their terms of the contract, whether the property in question was passed in a deliverable state in the State or not. 42. This Court also finds that the contract of sale between M/s. Arihant Udyog (supra) and its seller was clearly seen by one bill which was there on record, but once the Hon'ble Apex Court has remanded the matter back to this Court for examining each case, as quoted in para 28 of the judgment of the Apex Court, then the terms and condition in each case and in each bill need to be determined, which would show, like in the case of M/s. Arihant Udyog (supra), whether the sale actually happened within the State of Rajasthan or outside the State of Rajasthan. 43. Thus, after ascertaining from every bill whether the agricultural produce was brought and sold in the market area in question or not, it needs to be determined in each case after applying the principles of law as enumerated in M/s. Arihant Udyog (supra). 44. This Court further finds that the record of bills produced by the learned Government Counsel in some of the files are approximately more than 10,000/- and thousands of bills are yet to be submitted, and thus, making such examination of each bill by this High Court at this stage is an impossible task. Therefore, the respondent-Director, Agricultural Produce Marketing Board is directed to examine each and every bill by constituting a Committee, who shall submit its report. The Committee, to be constituted in pursuance of this order, shall decide the issues strictly in accordance with the law laid down in M/s. Arihant Udyog (supra). 45. Therefore, the respondent-Director, Agricultural Produce Marketing Board is directed to examine each and every bill by constituting a Committee, who shall submit its report. The Committee, to be constituted in pursuance of this order, shall decide the issues strictly in accordance with the law laid down in M/s. Arihant Udyog (supra). 45. The petitioners shall be entitled to furnish all the details in relation to the transactions, before such Committee, in which they seek exemption from market fee so as to show whether such sale was completed outside the State of Rajasthan or within the State of Rajasthan. 46. All the reasons and language mentioned in the contract (Bills) shall be strictly scrutinized as per the laid down in M/s. Arihant Udyog (supra) so as to justify the exercise to be done. This Court is also of the opinion that this cannot be done on the basis of single sample bill, as it would be only a symbolic decision, whereas the concrete relief to the petitioners shall follow, only if they provide rest of the bills in question and after examination thereof, it shall be decided as to whether those bills prove that the sale had taken place in a manner so as to entitle the petitioners for exemption from paying the market fee. 47. There is no doubt that if the intention is not gathered from the terms of the contract, then the property in goods passes where the goods are in a deliverable state and alleges an unconditional contract for sale of specific goods. 48. Thus, it will be the responsibility of the seller to show from the bills as to from what conditions the sale was completed outside the State itself, and that, the condition imposed by the seller that he is not liable for any loss or damage to the goods that may occur in transit; so therefore, it reflects that the sale itself at that juncture was complete and therefore, the petitioners may be exempted from the market fee, in accordance with law laid down in M/s. Arihant Udhyog (supra). 49. Thus, this Court rejects prayer made on behalf of the petitioners that on the basis of single bill, the issue of complete exemption in relation to all other bills, which are not even before this Court, can be examined. 50. 49. Thus, this Court rejects prayer made on behalf of the petitioners that on the basis of single bill, the issue of complete exemption in relation to all other bills, which are not even before this Court, can be examined. 50. In light of the aforesaid observations and directions, this Court disposes of the present writ petitions with a direction that the respondent-Director, Agricultural Produce Marketing Board shall get the matter examined by constituting a Committee, in light of the judgment in M/s. Arihant Udyog (supra). The petitioners shall be required to give all the bills before such Committee, in respect whereof, they are seeking exemption from payment of market fee within a period of 30 days from today. Such bills shall be examined by the Committee to be constituted by the respondent-Director, Agricultural Produce Marketing Board in pursuance of this order. The Committee shall consider all the bills strictly in accordance with the law laid down in M/s. Arihant Udyog (supra), and the petitioners, only in those bills where the sale was completed outside the State, shall be entitled for exemption from payment of market fee, but in those cases where the sale is continuing and the market fee is leviable, the same shall not be exempted from payment of market fee. Such an exercise by constituting a Committee in pursuance of this order, shall be completed by the respondents within a period of six months from today. The stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.