•lON'BLE SHRI H. L. DATTU, C.J. & HOK'BLE SHRI DiLIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH, J :TIT! IENT PRESENT: M/S IND AGRO SYNERGY LTD.. a company du!y inoorporated under the retevant provisions of the Indian C"bmpaniesAct,'1956 having its registered ofrice at Uria industriai Area, Raipur (C.G.) -Versus- 1. KRiSHI UPAJ MANDI SAM!T! MARYADIT, Raipur through Its Secretary, having its office at Pandri; Raipur (C.G.) 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, through 7he Secretary to the Govt. of Chhattisgarh, DeDartment of Local Seif Go\ft. Iviantralaya, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Shri B.P. Sharma; counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Ranbir Singh, oounse' for respondent No.1. Shri N.K. Agrawai, Ey. A.G. for respondent No.2/State. (Passed on 04.04.2007) • The foliowing ora! order of t.he Court was passed by H.L.Dattu, C.J. Ths petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of ;ndian Companies Act, 1956 (henceforth, 'the Act'). The first respondent in the writ petition is the Market Committee established by the State Government. 2) The petitioner brings wheat inio the market area and crushes it into pov/der and thsreafter takes it out of the market area. __ 3) The question that is posed before us by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of M.P.Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (henceforth, 'the Adhiniyam') is u.ftra vires ofthe Act and also opposed to constitutionai provisions. Therefore, a request is made to strike down the aforesaid !egis!ation. Thou.gh the petitioner has sought for other reliefs in the \"rit petition, but at the time offina! hearing ofthe matter, Shri B.P.Sharma, learned coynsel appearing for the petitioner confines th's writ petition only to the challenge to the wes of Section 19 (2) of the Adhiniyam. 4) Now to appreoiate the contentions canvassed by Shri B.P.Sharma, the provislons ofSection 19 (2) ofthe Adhiniyam require to be noticed. Therefore, they are extracted, which read as under: 19. Power to levy market fee.- [(1) Every market Committee shall levy market fee— (i) on the saie of notified agricultural produce whether brought from vvithin the State or from outside ihe State into the market area: and (ii) on the notifled agriculturai produce whether brought from v'/ithin the State or from outside the State into the market areas and used for processing; 5) Shri B.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sub- sectlon (2) of Section 19 of the Adhiniyam is uSra vires of the Constitution. Reiiance is placed on Entry 52 of List-1 of the Constitution to suggest that under the said Entry the 'egislature cannot levy market fee. This contention is canvassed by learned counsel only on the basis of the returns filed by the respondents. 6) Shri ~ Ranbir Singh, counse! for •. respondent No,.1 and Shri N.K.Agrav.'al, iearned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No.2 would submit that the provisions ofthe Adhiniyam, 1992 is an Act enacted by ths State Legislature in exercise of its powers under Entry 28 read with Entry 66 of List -i! to Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. (^ 3 . 7) Entry 28 of List - II speaks of markets and fairs. The Entry gives that State Legisiature power to legislate on markets and fairs. Entry 66 speaks of levy of fees in respect of any of the matters in t'ne List, but not including fees taken in any Court. A conjoint reading of Entry-28 read with Entry-66 of the List would authorize the State Government to enact legislation to levy market fee. Therefore, in our opinion, She contention of the learned counsei appearing for the petitioner that the State Government under Entry-52 of List-]] of the Constitution cou!d1 not 'nave !evied market fee, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the same is rejected. 8) Learned counsei for the petitioner would also submit that the activity of the petitioner is to bring the wheat from outslde the State into the market area and then crush it into wheat flour powder and take it out of the market and since no activity is done by the petitioner in market area, the respondents are not justified to levy any fees under the Act. In order to appreciate th& contention of the learned oounsel for the petitioner, the object of the Adhiniyam, the words used in the dictionan/ clause of the Act requires to be noticed by us. 9) The object of the Adhiniyam is to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling agricultural produce and the gstablishment and proper administration of the markets of agricultural produce in the State of Chhattisgarh. The meaning ofthe expression "agricultural produce" is defined under Section 2 (1) (m) of the Act, >A'hich means all produce of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, apicuiture, piscicuiture or forest as specified in this Sc'nedule. Market area means the area for which a market is established under Section 4. The expression "processing" is defined under Sect'on 2 (I) (mmm) of the dictionary clause to include the activity of povi'dering, orushing, decorticating, husking, parboiling, polishing, ginning, pressing, curing or any other treatment to which an agricultural produce or its product is subjected to before finai consumption. 4- 10) Keeping in view the meaning of the expressions "agriculturai produce", "market area" and the "processing", iet us now considerthe submission ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner. The argument ofthe learned counset is that conversion of wheat into AKa or wheat powder would be a manufacturins activity^because a new commercial commodity would emerge, when the wheat is crushed into wheat powder. Therefore, according to learned counsel, sub- seciion (2) ofSection 19 oftheAdlliniyam is not attracted, since /the activity of the petitioner is bringing the "/heat into m.arket area and crushing it into powder. in the normal course, the submission orthe learned counsel would not have been difficuit to accept. But iegislature itself has defined t'ne meaning of the expression "processing" to include the activity of powdering of an agriculture produce. 11) Under Section 19 (2) of the Adhiniyam, three ingredients must be satisfied for levying market fee under the Adhiniyam. The first is that the product must be an agricultural produce. The petitioner oannot dispute that wheat is an agricuitural produce. in fact the wheat is inciuded in the schedule appended to the Adhiniyam. The second ingredient is that it should be brought from within t'ne State or from outside the State. Admittedly, in the prssent case, t'ne petitioner 'orings the wheat from outside the State into market area and the last requirement is that it should be used for the purpose of processing. 12) The aotivity of the petitioner, as we have already noticed, is conversion of wheat into atta or wheat powder and the powder is included within the expression of "processing" and since the product is also included in the expression of "prooessing", the provisions of the Adhiniyam is definitely attracted. !n that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the activity of the petitioner would attract the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Adhiniyam. !n aid of our oonclusion, we also take into consideration the s view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Orient Paper & Industrial Ud., Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 6017, wherein the Apex Court has observed that market fee is leviabie on notified agricultural produce when it is brought into market area and used for processing. The Court has emphasized the condition that the commodity must be agricultural produce and must be used for processing and even if it is used for the purpose of manufacture, then the market fee is not attracted. 13) !n view of the above discussion, in our opinion, the writ petition filed by 'ne petitloner requires to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected. 14) In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed ro bear their own costs. Ordered acoordingly. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd-/ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge