The Appellants sought directions from the Court to quash the Notices issued by the Market Committee and to restrain the Market Committee from recovering market fee from them.
They also sought a declaration that as producers of cashew kernel they did number even require a license.
The Appellants filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Kerala praying for declaration that they were Producers of cashew kernel and, therefore, were number liable to companylect the market fee from their purchasers and pay the same to the Committee.
The Appellants then filed a Writ Appeal which also came to be dismissed by the impugned Judgment dated 2nd April, 1998.
Both cashew nut and cashew kernel are Notified Agricultural Produce under the Schedule to the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act, 1966 hereinafter called the said Act .
The companytroversy in these Appeals is very limited.
There is numberdispute that the Appellants are purchasing cashew nut and by a process of manufacture extracting cashew kernel.
The Appellants have licences under the said Act as Importers, Traders, Exporters and Producers from the Market Committee.
The Appellants are paying market fee as per the provisions of Section 65 2A when they purchase cashew nut.
The Market Committee issued Notices to the Appellants directing them to companylect market fee from their buyers and pay the same to the Committee in respect of transactions of sales of cashew kernel.
This Writ Petition came to be dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court on 21st August, 1996.
The cashew kernel is then sold by them all over India as well as in International markets.
N. VARIAVA, J. LITTTTTTTJ These Appeals are against a Judgment dated 2nd April, 1998.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The Appellants purchase raw cashew nut and after subjecting the same to process of manufacture extract cashew kernel.
