ORDER : 1. Delay condoned. 2. We heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana. 3. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 22-7-2024 in CWP No.9891 of 2009 (O&M) by which the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the sole respondent before us and thereby declared that transporting of stock from one market committee to the other would not amount to business transaction or sale and, therefore, the petitioners - herein would not be justified in demanding additional market fees. 4. The High Court in its impugned order has observed in Paras 7, 8 and 9 respectively as under:- "7. Thus, we are satisfied that once, market fees has been paid by any individual or the dealer/firm either within the State or outside, it need not to pay it again, on the same stock. Merely transferring the stock from one Market Committee to another, would not entail payment of additional market fees, as the market fees is required to be paid on the goods, and each and every Committee is not required to demand market fees for a product separately. 8. The interpretation taken by the Appellate Authority that exemption is to be taken once and not twice, is misconceived. The correct interpretation of Rule 30(5) of the 1962 Rules, is that transferring of stock from one Market Committee to another, would not amount to business transaction or sale. Therefore, we hold that the orders demanding market fees and penalty from the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the provisions contained under Rule 30 (5) of the 1962 Rules. The impugned orders therefore cannot be sustained. 9. Accordingly, the orders passed by Zonal Administrator, dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure P-6) and 07.01.2008 (Annexure P-19), as well as the Authority, are worth to be set aside." 5. The High Court also directed the State to refund the amount deposited by the respondent - herein along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the State invited our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of "Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Boards and Ors. vs. Shree Ganesh Rice and General Mills and Anr." (1999) 1 SCC 86 more particularly Paras 5 to 10 respectively which read thus:- "5. The learned counsel appearing for the State invited our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of "Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Boards and Ors. vs. Shree Ganesh Rice and General Mills and Anr." (1999) 1 SCC 86 more particularly Paras 5 to 10 respectively which read thus:- "5. Rule 30 of the Rules provides that no market fee shall be levied on the sale or purchase of any agricultural produce in respect of which such fee is already paid in the notified market area in which the said produce was manufactured or extracted. Sub-rules (3) to (5) are relevant in this case. They read as follows: "30. (3) The dealer who claims exemption from the payment of market fee leviable on any agricultural produce manufactured or extracted from the agricultural produce in respect of which the market fee has already been paid in another notified market area, shall make declaration and give certificate to the committee in Form LL, where the fee has already been paid within twenty days of the day of bringing of agricultural produce within the notified market area. Form LL shall be prepared in quadruplicate form, the booklets duly attested and issued by the Secretary of the Committee against the payment fixed by the Committee. It will be the duty of the dealer claiming exemption from the market fee under this sub-rule to send the original copy of Form LL to the Committee within whose market area the agricultural produce is brought. The second copy shall be sent to the Office of the Committee within whose market area such agricultural produce was bought, and the third and fourth copies shall be retained by the dealer-purchaser and the dealer-seller, respectively and the same shall be kept as a part of their accounts maintained in respect of market fees. The second copy shall be sent to the Office of the Committee within whose market area such agricultural produce was bought, and the third and fourth copies shall be retained by the dealer-purchaser and the dealer-seller, respectively and the same shall be kept as a part of their accounts maintained in respect of market fees. (4) It shall be the duty of the dealer claiming exemption from market fee under sub-rules (3) and (5) to produce a copy of the R/R, forwarding note, bilty or challan, as the case may be, duly signed by him or his authorised agent in the Office of the Committee from whose market area the agricultural produce is brought before it is unloaded, the second copy in the Office of the Committee within whose market area the agricultural produce is brought before it is unloaded and the third copy to be retained by him: Provided that if no such copy of R/R, forwarding note, bilty or challan is produced in the Office of the Committee concerned, no claim for exemption shall be entertained. (5) The agricultural produce brought for processing from within the State 'or from outside the State' and for which market fee has already been paid in any market in the State 'or outside the State', shall be exempted from payment of market fee second time. Provided that the dealer who claims exemption under sub-rule (5) from the payment of fee leviable on any agricultural produce brought for processing shall make declaration and give certificate to the Committee in Form LL duly attested by the Secretary of the Committee where fee has already been paid, within twenty days of the bringing of agricultural produce within the notified market area and complies with the provisions of sub-rule (2)." 6. Under the above Rule, three conditions are required to be satisfied for the purpose of claiming exemption by a dealer: A. The dealer should have paid the market fee already in a market area. B. The dealer shall make a declaration and give certificate to the Committee in Form LL where the fee has already been paid. C. Such Form shall be filed within 20 days of the date of bringing the agricultural produce within the notified market area. 7. B. The dealer shall make a declaration and give certificate to the Committee in Form LL where the fee has already been paid. C. Such Form shall be filed within 20 days of the date of bringing the agricultural produce within the notified market area. 7. Unless all the above conditions are fulfilled, it is not possible for the Market Committee to accept a mere statement that market fee had already been paid and the dealer was not liable to pay it again. Compliance with the Rule is not a mere technical formality. In the present case, the first respondent did not admittedly file Form LL with the Market Committee. It filed Form M only after the prescribed time-limit. Even in that Form, as pointed out already, column 7 was not filled up. In such circumstances, the stand taken by the Market Committee that the first respondent was liable to pay market fee was correct. 8. The High Court has unfortunately overlooked the fact that the first respondent had not filed Form LL and made a declaration or given a certificate as required by the Rule, but instead filed only Form M and that too leaving column 7 blank. The High Court has proceeded on the footing that there was only a delay in filing the required declaration. Hence the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable and the appeal is to be allowed. But learned counsel for the first respondent points out rightly that in the memo issued by the Market Committee on 18-3-1997, it was not pointed out that the first respondent ought to file Form LL containing a declaration and a certificate. Nor was the attention of the first respondent drawn to Rule 30. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the market fee was actually paid when the produce was purchased. According to him, all the relevant receipts for payment of market fee in the area are readily available with the first respondent. 9. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the first respondent's right to claim exemption from payment of market fee in Karnal shall not be defeated as it is stated to have been paid already actually in the area where the produce was purchased. The first respondent is also willing to file the declaration and certificate in Form LL. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the first respondent's right to claim exemption from payment of market fee in Karnal shall not be defeated as it is stated to have been paid already actually in the area where the produce was purchased. The first respondent is also willing to file the declaration and certificate in Form LL. Mr K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has submitted that if the declaration and certificate in Form LL are filed within 2 weeks from this date, the Market Committee would not insist upon compliance with the period of limitation prescribed in the Rule in view of the defect in the memo dated 18-3-1997 and consider the question whether the fee had been paid already and the first respondent is entitled to exemption. 10. Hence, we direct the first respondent to file the declaration and certificate in Form LL with the Marketing Committee, Karnal within a period of two weeks from this date and the latter shall on such filing of the declaration and certificate, grant the exemption to the first respondent from payment of market fee if the other conditions in the Rule are satisfied irrespective of the period of limitation prescribed in the Rule. This appeal is disposed of with the above directions." 7. Rule 30, referred to in the decision, referred to above, more particularly sub-rule 5 makes it very clear that the agricultural produce brought for processing from within the State or from outside the State and for which market fee has already been paid in any market in the State or outside the State would be exempted from payment of market fee second time. However, the same is subject to the proviso attached to sub-Rule 5 of Rule 30. 8. This Court in Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Boards (supra) clarified in para 6 that there are three conditions which are required to be satisfied for the purpose of claiming exemption by a dealer. 9. It goes without saying that if the conditions as stipulated in the rule are not satisfied, it is always open for the Authority concerned to recover the said amount. This is exactly what this Court has said in Para 9 referred to above. 10. There is no good reason for us to take a different view than the one taken by the High Court. 11. This is exactly what this Court has said in Para 9 referred to above. 10. There is no good reason for us to take a different view than the one taken by the High Court. 11. However, as noted aforesaid, if the conditions are not fulfilled by any dealer for the purpose of claiming exemption, it is always open for the Authority to recover the requisite amount. 12. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of. 13. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.