Market fee validity turns on broad quid pro quo, not exact matching of levy and facilities already provided.

A market fee is not invalid merely because all facilities in the notified market area are not yet fully completed. The governing test is a reasonable and broad correlation between the levy and the services rendered or intended to be rendered, not arithmetical equivalence. Where the market committee has begun establishing the market yard and is already providing some services while other facilities are under development, the levy may stand. The challenge based on absence of quid pro quo failed because there was no evidence of a total absence of services or amenities, and the levy remained valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the market committee could validly levy and collect market fee when all facilities and amenities in the notified market area were not yet fully completed, and whether the levy failed for want of quid pro quo.

Analysis: The Act contemplates constitution of a market committee for the notified area, establishment of markets, provision of specified facilities, levy of market fee under section 12(1), creation of a market committee fund under section 14(1), and expenditure of that fund for the purposes set out in section 15. The governing principle is not mathematical equivalence between the fee collected and the services rendered, but a reasonable and general correlation between the levy and the services intended to be rendered. The absence of every contemplated amenity at the initial stage does not by itself invalidate the levy, especially where some services are already being provided and further facilities are being created in course of time as funds permit. On the evidence, the committee had taken steps to establish the market yard and had already provided certain services and facilities, while other works were in progress. The challenge also failed because the plaintiff adduced no evidence to establish total absence of services or amenities.

Conclusion: The levy of market fee was valid notwithstanding that all facilities were not fully in place, and the objection based on absence of quid pro quo failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For a market fee, quid pro quo requires only a reasonable and broad correlation between the levy and the services rendered or intended to be rendered; complete or arithmetically exact matching of fee and facilities is not necessary, and the levy is not invalid merely because all amenities are not fully completed at the time of levy.

---