COMMON ORDER: TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J. In all these Writ Petitions, the issue involved is one and the same.Hence, they are being disposed of by this common order. The facts narrated in W.P.No.43674 of 2018 are being taken up for disposal of all the Writ Petitions. 2. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are aggrieved by the action of the Agricultural Market Committee in collecting the market fee notified commodities as well detaining the vehicles at the point of check- posts for non-payment of fee, inasmuch as it verges on arrogating and assuming the power beyond the authority of law vested in the respondent committees under Section 12(1) of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, and it openly runs in defiance of settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court, besides, it glaringly falls foul of the Memo in 59/23/2015.SO(MKTG.II) dated 08.02.2016 issued by the Principal Secretary, Agricultural and Co-operation Department. 3. The case of the petitioners is that though there is no sale or purchase within the area of market committee, the market committee is harassing and directing the petitioners to pay the market fee again and again under Section 12(1) of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, despite the amendment by the State with effect from 09.10.2015. For the sake of facility, Section 12(1) of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, which is relevant, is extracted hereunder: "12. Levy of fees by the market committees by the purchaser of the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of live stock. 1-A The Market Fee under sub-section (1) shall be single point levy on notified Agricultural Produce, Live stock and Product of Live stock. If the Market Fee is levied and collected by any Market Committee in the State, and such Agricultural Produce, Live stock and Product of live stock sold or processed within the State are exported outside the State, it shall be exempted from the levy of Market Fee subject to production of evidence of payment of Market Fee as may be prescribed." 4. The said amendment came into effect in pursuance of the order of this Court in Modern Nutrition Company, Hyd. Vs. Agricultural Market Committee and Ors. The said amendment came into effect in pursuance of the order of this Court in Modern Nutrition Company, Hyd. Vs. Agricultural Market Committee and Ors. , [ 1996 (4) ALD 801 (D.B.)] , the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is held at paragraph Nos.11 to 14 as hereunder: "11. Adverting to the provision of Section 12 of the Act, we have no manner of doubt that in the case of the writ petitioner - appellant, respondents have acted rather carelessly and assumed beyond the scope of Section 12 of the Act, that any goods purchased or sold anywhere but brought within the market area are liable to payment of fee. The condition for the payment of fee is that the agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock are purchased or sold in the notified market area. Explanation -I of Section 12 of the Act can only give rise to a presumption that such articles falling under the definition of 'agricultural produce', etc., which are subjected to levy under Section 12, if found within the limits of the notified market area or seen being taken out of the notified market area, are liable to fee, but it shall be open to the owner of the goods concerned to dispute the claim and once he disputed/disputes the claim, unless there is an enquiry, the presumption would not entitle the market committee concerned to realise the fee. 12. Our attention has been drawn, however, to Rule 75 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, which reads as follows: "75. Check-post:- (1) No person shall transport any notified agricultural produce, livestock, or products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area, from the limits thereof, except on production of the receipt for the payment of prescribed fees in respect of such notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock to the market committee concerned. (2) Any employee of the Market Committee authorised by it in this behalf shall have power at any time and without notice to stop and check any vehicle suspected to carry unauthorisedly any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock from any place within the limits of any notified market area. (3) Any person who fails to stop the vehicle when required to do so under sub-rule (2), shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/-." 13. (3) Any person who fails to stop the vehicle when required to do so under sub-rule (2), shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/-." 13. The important expression, to attract action at the check-post in case of transport of any agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock, is, "purchased or sold in the notified market area". The condition that the agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock were purchased or sold in the notified market area, do not in any manner change beyond the presumption in Explanation- I of Section 12 of the Act merely because a check- post is contemplated at which production of the receipt for the payment of prescribed fee in respect of notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock to the market committee is contemplated. The expressions, following the above expression 'purchased or sold in the notified market area', 'in respect of such notified agricultural produce .... to the market committee concerned' clearly envisage that fee shall be realisable by the concerned market committee only if the agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock are purchased or sold in the notified market area. The above, in our view, are good enough reasons for interference with the impugned judgment as well as the action of the respondents in enforcing upon the writ petitioner-appellant levy under Section 12 of the Act. 14. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside, consequentially the writ petition is allowed and it is declared that respondents are not entitled to realise any market fee from any person at the check-post, who is not shown to have purchased or sold any agricultural produce, etc., upon which fee is leviable under Section 12 of the Act. Any fee already realised in the absence of the above being established in the case of the writ petitioner-appellant shall be refunded to it." 5. Relying on the aforesaid judgment in Modern Nutrition Company’s case (1 supra), in another judgment of Division Bench of the composite High Court in Kurnool Dist. Rice Millers Association and Ors. Vs. Any fee already realised in the absence of the above being established in the case of the writ petitioner-appellant shall be refunded to it." 5. Relying on the aforesaid judgment in Modern Nutrition Company’s case (1 supra), in another judgment of Division Bench of the composite High Court in Kurnool Dist. Rice Millers Association and Ors. Vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Amtakur and Ors., [ 1998 (3) ALD 167 (DB)] , it is held that the legal position with regard to liability to pay market fees is clear to the effect that: (i) if there is a sale or purchase of agricultural produce or livestock or products of livestock within a market area for the first time, the market fees is liable to be paid;(ii) it is the purchaser who is liable to pay the market fees and only if the purchaser cannot be identified, then the seller can be obligated to pay the said market fees;(iii) the agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock which are carried by any means and entering into the area of a Market Committee, cannot be subject to pay the market fees for the second time if proof is produced before the Officers of the Market Committee of the market fees having been paid in another Market Committee; and(iv) even at the check-posts, the same procedure has to be followed as referred to above in clause (iii). 6. In the counter filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6, it has not specifically denied any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. The learned Standing Counsel for the Market Committee has not contested the judgment that the petitioners’ counsels cited and that he has fairly admitted that the law applies to them. It is stated that the sale and purchase of agriculture are subject to payment within the market area for the first time, if the petitioners can provide proof and if the buyer cannot be identified who is responsible for paying market fee, then the purchaser must pay the market fee. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in APMC Yashwanthapura Vs. M/s.Selva Foods. ,Civil Appeal No.7706 of 2021 dated 14.12.2021 : (2022) 3 SCC 313 held in the following manner: "… It is not a case where the respondent is denying sale of the imported agricultural produce within the market area of the appellant after processing. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in APMC Yashwanthapura Vs. M/s.Selva Foods. ,Civil Appeal No.7706 of 2021 dated 14.12.2021 : (2022) 3 SCC 313 held in the following manner: "… It is not a case where the respondent is denying sale of the imported agricultural produce within the market area of the appellant after processing. In that view of the matter it is not entitled for exemption from payment of market fees. At the same time we make it clear that if one merely imports notified agricultural produce from outside the State for the purpose of cleaning and processing without selling the processed produce within the market area is not liable to pay market fee. As much as in this case without disputing the factum of sale within the market area post the import, the respondent has defended the proceedings only on the ground that once the agricultural produce is processed it will not attract market fee as such the same cannot be accepted. It is the sale within the market area that attracts levy of market fee, and not the first purchase that was outside the market area. Notably the goods sold are also notified agricultural produce specified in the Schedule…" 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s.Selva Foods’s case (3 supra), has clarified that if one mere imported notified agricultural produce from outside the State for the purpose of screening and processing without selling the processed produce within the market area, the said traders would not be liable to pay market fee. In the present case, the petitioners are trading notified market agricultural product. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the traders are liable to pay the market fee. The above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s.Selva Foods’s case (3 supra) is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. 9. However, in view of the admission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the market committee, this Court is not inclined to delve the legal niceties in the matter. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of all the cases as per the admission made by the leaned Standing Counsel for the market committee, relying on the judgments referred supra by the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of all the cases as per the admission made by the leaned Standing Counsel for the market committee, relying on the judgments referred supra by the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, the writ petitioners are not entitled for the relief of refund of the amount. 11. With the above observation, all the Writ Petitions are allowed and, consequently, the respondents are directed not to collect market fee from the petitioners for the commodities purchased or sold outside the State. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.