1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1369/2010. Suresh Rice Mill -: versus :- Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bhandara. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MAY 03, 2010. Shri R.A. Gupte, learned counsel for petitioner contends that Rice tendered at Government Godown at Kardha as per government scheme was purchased outside the market area and hence as per the provisions of Section 31 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 as it was not marketed within the market yard supervision fee and market fee is not payable. He has relied upon the provisions of Section 31 and judgment of Division bench of this Court reported at 2006 [4] BCR 645 (Britannia Industries Limited .vrs. Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee and another). Shri P.S. Khubalkar, learned counsel for respondent A.P.M.C., points out that though rice was purchased outside the market area, it has been sold within the market area and for that purpose he is relying upon the application as filed before the Tribunal under Section 57 of the Act. 2 The document or scheme by which the petitioner is put under obligation to tender rice to government as levy is not placed on record. What is the proportion of said rice [levy] with business transacted with petitioner, is therefore not clear. On what ground such levy is imposed by the government is also not brought on record. Though learned counsel urges that the levy rice has not been sold to government, it is apparent that the rice is not tendered free of cost to government. Even if it is free of cost, it is bound to be for some quid pro quo, and that also is not brought on record. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court considers the case where Sugar is purchased outside the market area and not dealt with or marketed within the market area. The provisions of law are very clear and if a commodity is not marketed in market area, but exported out, petitioner is not expected to pay market fee or supervision charges. However, here the necessary facts are not brought on record. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction, Writ Petition is thus dismissed. However, it is made clear that this decision shall not be used as a precedent in any other matter between the petitioner and respondent APMC. The said matter will be decided on the basis of the material placed on record in that matter. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.