G. v. Gunayya Chetty & Anr v. V. Dasaratharamaiah & Ors.

BHAGWATI, J.-This appeal, by special leave, r,a,iscs a very short question of construction of ~ertain provisions of the Andhra P~adesh Agricultural Produce and Live-Stock Markets Act, 1966 (heremafter referred to as the Act). The narration of a few facts giving rise to the appeal would help to appreciate the question which arises for II determination, but it would be convenient first to refer to the relevant

provisions of the Act before we recapitulate the facts.

The Act is a species of legislation \vhich has now been enacted in almost all States of India with a view to providing satisfactory condi-tions for the growers of agricultural produce to sell their produce on equal terms and at reasonable prices. Section 2 gives definitions of the varioui terms used in the Act, while sec; 3 provides for issue of notifi-cation by the Govemmelit declaring a spi!tific. area "to. be a notified area for the putposes·· of this Act in respect o'f any agrii:nltural produce, livestock and products' of livestock. · Then comes s. 4, which says in sub-s. (1), which is the only sub-section material for our purpose :

"The Government shall. constitute, by poti.fication, a, market

wrninittec ,for every notifiea area from such Jlate as may be specified in the. notification and the matl>et committee so constituted. ~hall be a body corporate by such name as the Government may specify in the said notific<1.tion, hav-ing perpetual successiop. and a common seal with power to acquire, bold and dispose of property and may, by its corporate name, sue aµd. be sued."

T11e c.ornposition of. market committee is laid down in s. 5. Sub-s. (1) of that section provides :

"Every market committee shall consists of such number of

members,. being not less than twelve and not more than sixteen, as may be fixed for it by the Government and shall be constituted in the following manner :- (i) uot less than one-half of the members, to be appointed

by the Government, after c.onsultatio~ with the Director of Marketing, from among the growers of agricultural produce and the owners of livestock and products of I<: livestock in the notified area ;

(ii) one non-official from the notified area, to be elected by

the members of the local cooperative marketing sbcie-ties ; or in the absence of ~uch societies to be elected as specified in clause (iv) ;

(iii) (a) one representative, having jurisdiction over the noti-

fied area, of the Agricultural Department or the Animal Hus!iandry Department, to be appointed by the Govern-mep.t;

(b) two representatives~ one each, of the municipality ' within which the office of . the market committee is located and of the gram panchayat!! comprised in the notified area, to be elected by the members of the •, municipality and the gram panchayats respectively ; or in the absence of such municipality both representatives to be elected by the members of the gram panchayats ; or in the absence of a gram panchayat, only one repre-sentative to be elected by the municipality ;

(iv) the remaining members, to be elected in the prescribed manner by the persons licensed under sub,section (1) of Sec. 7 in the notified area from among themselves : Provided that where a market committee is cortstituted in any

notified area for the first time, the Government shall appoint

the members under this clause from out of a panel of tra-ders of the notified agricultural produce, , livestock or products or livestock in the notified area, furnished by the Director of Marketing to the Government."

Sub-section (2) says that every market 'committee shall elect two of its members other than those mentioned in clause (iii) of sub-s. (1), to be respectively Chairman and Vice-Chairman.. and sub-sec. (3) enacts that save as otherwise provided in the Act, the term of office of the members appointed or elected under sub-s. (1) shall be three years from the date of the election of the Chairman. The other sub-sections of sec. 5 are not material and we need not refer to them. Sub-s. (2) of s. 6 empowers the Government to extend the tenn of office of the members of the market committee for a period not exceeding one year mbject to the proviso that no such extension shall be given .... for a period exceeding six months at a time. What is to happen on the expiration of the term of the office of the members of the market committee, whether original or extended. is set out in sub-s. (I) Qf s. 6. That sub-section says that on the expiration of the term of th~ omce of the members of the market committee, the Government .shall re-constitute the market committee. Then follow certain other sectioil.s which have no bearing on the controversy before us and we may, therefore, straight go to section 22 which deals with supersession of market committee. That section is very material and we m:1Y re-produce it in extenso.

"Supersession of market committees.-(!) lf in the opinion of the Government a market committee is not com-petent to perform or persistently makes default in perform-ing the duties imposed on it by or under this Act, or abuses. its powers, they may, by notification, supersede such com-mittee for a period not exceeding one year in the first in-stance and may, by order, extend, from time to time the period of supersession so however, that the total period of supersession in the case of any market committee shall not exceed two years:

Provided that before issuing a notification under this sub'section, the Government shall give to the market committee an opportunity of making representation on

the action proposed and shall consider the explanation or objection, if any, of the market committee thereon.

(2) As from the date of publication of a notification under sub-section (1), superseding a market committee. the following consequences shall ensue-

(a) all the members as well as the Chairman and Vice-

Chairma·n ·of the fr1arket committee shall be deem-ed to have vacated their oftices;

(b) all. the assets vested in the market-committee shall,

subject to all its liabilities, vest in th!> Government.

(3) Where a market con1mittce has been superseded- (a) the Government may, by order, appoint a suitable

person or persons to exercise the powers and per-form the functions of the marke'\ committee during the period of its superscssion and transfer to such . person or persons the assets and liabilities of the superseded market committee as on the dMe of such transfer, and (b) the Government, may at any time before the expira-

tion of the period of supcrscssion, constitute a _new market committee under sub-section ( 1) of section 4 and ·transfer thereto the assets and liabi-lities of the superseded market committee as on the date of such transfer."

Bearing in mind these relevant provisions of the Act, we may now turn to the facts leading up to the present appeal before us.

The Government, by notification issued under s. 3, sub-s. (3) o·t the Act, declared the area comprised in Maebilipatnam, Badar ·and Divi taluks to be notified area for the purposes of the Act. This was followed by a notification dated 30th October, 1969 constitut-ing a Market Committee for the notified area under s. 4, sub-s. ( 1) of the Act. The Market Committee was lo consist of twelve mem-bers to be appointed in the manner set out in s. 5, sub-s. (1) of the Act. Six out of these twelve members . were nominated by the Government from among the growers of Agricultural produce and owners of live-stock under s. 5, subcs. (1), cl. (i), two were nomi-nated by the Government from among traders under the proviso !o s. 5, sub-s. (1), cl. (iv) and the Agriculture Extension Officer, Movva nominated by the Government as departmental representative under s. 5, sub-s. (1), cl. (iii)(a). It docs not appear from the record whether the other thr~e Jnembers were appointed as contem-plated by s. 5, sub-s. (1), els. (ii) and (iii)(b). The Chairman of the Market Committee was elected on 24th January, 1970 and the term of office of the members of the Market Committee was, therefore, three years from that date as provided in s. 5, sub-s. (3).

It, however, ·appears that in the case of Market Committee consti-tuted by , the Government for some other notified areas, writ peti-tions were filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging 1he validity of the nominations made by the Government under s. 5, sub-s. (1), cl. ( i) and clause (iv) proviso. The ground of challenge in regard to the nominations made under s. 5, sub-s. (1), cl. (i) was that the Government had not complied with the mandatory re-quirement of that provision which enjoined it to consult the Direc-tor of Marketing before nominating members from among the grow-ers of agricultural produce and owners of livestock in the notified areas in n;gard to nominations made under the proviso to s. 5, sub-s. (l), cl. (iv), the challenge was based on the ground that the nomi-nations were made by the Government outside the panel of traders furnished by the Director of Marketing. These grounds of challenge were upheld by the l:!igh Court in a decision reported in Donda Ram Rao v. State(') and it was held that the nominations made under s. 5, sub-s. (1), cl. (i) and the proviso to cl. (iv) were in contra-vention of those respective provisions and were accordingly invalid. Though this decision was given in regard to the Market Committee& of other notified areas, it equally applied to the Market Committee constituted for the notified area of Machilipatnam, Bandar and Divi taluks and hence it was obvious that the nominations made by the Government from among the growers of agricultural produce and owners of livestock under s. 5, sub-s. (l), cl. (i) and from among traders under the proviso to s. 5, sub-s. (1), cl. (iv) were invalid. But that would leave only one or at th~ highest four validly appoint-ed members on the Market Committee. and the quorum for a meet-ing of the Market Committee under rule 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Rules, 1969 made under s. 33 of the Act being &ave, it would be incompetent to the Market Committee to exercise its powers and discharge its functions. The Government, therefore, after giving an opportunity to the exist-ing members of the Market Committee to be heard, passed an order dated November, 1971 under section 22, sub-s. (I) of the Act superseding the Market Committee for a period of six months on the ground that it was not competent to perform the duties im-posed on it by or under the Act. The consequence of this super-session was that aU the members of the Market Committee were deemed to have vacated their offices and all the assets vested in the Market Committee, subiect to all its liabilities. became vested in the Government. Vide sub-s. (2) of s. 22. The Government by another order of foe sam-o date made under s. 22, sub-s. (3), cl. (a) appointed the Assistant Din;etor of Marketing to exercise the powers and perform the functions cif the 'Market Committee during foe period of its supersession. It may be stated that none of the per-sons affected challenged the order of supersession made by the Gov-ernment and it does not form the subject matter of challenge even in the present appeal. · ·

It appears that the initial period of six months for which the Market Committee was superseded was further extended and just before the expiration of the extended period of supersession, the Government made an order dated 7th December, 1972 constituting a new Market Committee by nominating six pers"ons cut of growers of agricultural produce and owners of livestock under s. 5, sub-s. ( l). cl. (i}, the President of the Diviscema Cooperative Marketing Society, Avanigadda und-or s. 5, sub-s. (1), cl. (ii), the Agricultural Extension Officer. Movva as departmental representatives under s. 5, sub-s. ( 1), cl. (iii)( a) and three persons representing traders under the proviso to sub-cl. (iv) of s. 5, sub-s. (l). Though Divi taluk formed part of the notified area, no grower or trader from Divi Taluk was nominated on the Market Committee all the six repre-sentatives of growers hclong'-.d to Badar taluk, while all the repre-sentatives of traders belonged to Machillipatnam -taluk. Rcspon-

(1) A.I.R. 1971 Andhra Pradesh 353.

dents Nos. 1 and 2, who were two of the traders from Divi Taluk, r therefore filed Writ' Petition No. 1693 of 1973 in the High Court

of . Andhra Pradesh challenging the validity of the order d,ated 7th December, 197Z in so far as iL nominated representatives of trad-ers on the Market Committee 411der the Proviso to cl. (iv) of .sub-s. (I) of s. 5. The .argument of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was that it was the main part of cl.. (iv) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5 which applied n and not the Proviso and, therefore, the Government was n.ot en-titled to nominate representatives of traders but they were liable to be selected by traders licensed _under s. 7, sub-s. (1) from amongst themselves. The appellant who was one of the representatives nomi-nated by the Government, resisted this argument and defended the order dated 7th December, 1972. ]be learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition in the first instance, rejected the contention of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and held that when the Government constituted the new Market Committee by issuing the order dated 7th December, 1972, it constituted the Market Comfl)ittee for the first time, and therefore, under the proviso to s. 5, sub-s. (1), cl. (iv), the Government was entitled to nominate members from out of the p~nel of traders ·furnished by the Director of Marketing and the order dated 7th December, 1972 did not suffer from any in-firnlity. On this view, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being aggrieved by the order made by the learned Single Judge preferred an appeal under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent to a Division Bench -of the High Court. The Divi-sion Bench disagreed with the view taken by the learned Single Jiidge and held that when the Government constituted the new Mar-ket Committee by its order dated 7th December, 1972 on th~ expi-ration of the period of supersession of the earlier Market Committee, it did not constitute a new Market .Committee for the first time, and therefore, the case was governed, not by the proviso, but the main part of s. 5, sub-s. (1), cl. (iv) and the order dated 7th December, 1972 was accordingly invalid in so far as it nominated three mem-bers from among traders purporting to act under proviso to s. 5, sub-s. (1 ), cl. (iv). The appellant thereupon brought the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.

The sole question that arises for determination in this appeal is as ta which provision applied in the present case: the main part of cj. (iv) of sub-s. (1). of s. 5, or its proviso. The answer to the question depends upon whether the Market Committee was consti-tuted for the first time when the Government made the order dated 7th December, 1972. The main part of cl. (iv) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5 er\acts that, as a general rule, members representing traders are to "he elected "by the persons licensed under sub-s. (1) of s. 7 in the notified area among themselves". But the licence contemplated under sub-s. (l) of s. 7 is a licence to ·be granted by the Market Committee, and therefore, it must follow a fortiori that when a mar-ket committee is to be constituted for the first time, there would be no "persons licensed under sub-s. (l) of s. 7" in existence who could elect members. on the Market Committee under the main part

of cl. (iv) of sub-s. (I) of s. 5. That is why the proviso was enacted to deal with such a situation. It savs that when a Market Committee is being constituted for the first time, the elective method being obviously inappli.cablc, members representing traders shall be nominated by the Government in the manner set out there. Whenever, therefore, a question arises as to which is the appropriate method to be adopted in appointing members representing traders-whether elective method under the main part of ci. (iv) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5, or nominative method under the proviso--the inquiry which has to be made is: is the Government constituting the market committee for the first time, or has it already been constituted once before and in view of the expiration of the term of ot!ice of its members or its supersession, it is being constituted again?

Let us first take a case where a market committee has bec'l con-stituted for a notified area for the first time and the term of ollicc of its members, whether original or extended, expires. The Gov-ernment is then required to reconstitute the market commit!ee under I} s. 6. 'Reconstitute', according to its plain natural connotation,

means nothing else than 'constitute again'. 111c Government has, tkrefore, to constitute the market committee again. That would clearly be a new market committee, but it would not be a market committee constituted for the first time, for there was already an clearly be a new market committee, but it would not be a. market came to an end by eftlux of time. The proviso to cl. (iv) of sub-s. (I) of s. 5 can, therefore, obviously, on its plain language, have no application in such a case. The raison d'etre for the necessity of nomination under the proviso would also not be there.

Thm, does it make any difference whether a market committee constituted for a notified area for the first time is superseded and on the expiry of the period of supersession, a new market committee is constituted by the Government under sub-s. (I) of s. 4 as con-templated by sub's. (3) (b) of s. 22? The market committee which is constituted by the Government on the expiration of the period of supersession 1nust necessarily be a new market con1mittec vis-a.\·is the earlier one which is superseded. But that does not mean that it is a market committee constituted for the first time. It would indeed be doing violence. to the language of the proviso to say that such a market committee is one constituted for the first time for a notified area. when there was already an earlier market committe~ constituted for the same notifo:d area, though it was subsequently suspcrsedcd. There is no scope here for verbal semantics. It is a simple question we have to ask for ourselves: is this a n1arkct cu1n-mittee constituted for· the first time for this notified area or has there been ,l\ market committee before so that this is not the first time that a market committee is constituted for this notified area? If this question is asked, the answer is simple and self-evident. When there is a market committee constituted for a notified area and it is superseded and on th~ expiry of its superses~ion, ~ new. market committee is constituted by the Government, It is 1mposs1ble to see how it can be said that the new market committee is a market

G. v. GUNAYYA CllETTY v. V.· DASARATllARAMA!AH (li/wgwati, !.) 227 ·:ommittee constituted for the first time for !his notified area. Whether a market committee is constituted for the first tinie or not would depend on the question whether there was an earlier market. committee for the same notified area or not and not on the question whether it is a new market committee c9nstituted under sub-s. 11) of s. 4, or a market committee reconstituted under s. 6.

Here in the present case, there was a market committee consti-tuted by the Government for ·the notified area of Machilipatnam, Banda~ and Divi taluks under the notification dated 30th October, 1969 and this Market Committee functioned until it was superseded by the order dated 23rd November, 197 J. It may be reiterated once again that the supcrsession pf this Market Committee on the ground that by reason of want of sufficient members to constitute quorum, it was not competent to perform the duties imposed on it by or under the Act, was not challenged before us and we must, therefore, proceed on the basis that it was a market committee which had existence until it was superseded and it was not non-est ab initio When, therefore, the Government made t11c order dated 7th Decem-ber, 1972 on the expiration. of the period of supcrsession of this I> Market Committee, it undoubtedly constituted a m:w market com-mittee-new vis-a-vis the old which was superseded-but that was not a market committee constituted for the first time for the notifi-ed area of Machilipatnam, Bandar and Divi taluks. There was al-ready an earlier Market Committee for this notified ar-<a which was superseded and this was a second Market Committee constituted for this notified area on the expiration of the period of supersession of the earlier one. The proviso to cl. (iv) of suh-s. ( 1) of s. 5 had, therefore, no application and the Government was not entitled to non1inatc mcn1bers representing traders on the 1vfarkct Co1nn1ittee constituted by it under the order dated 7th December, 1972. It was the main part of cl. (iv) of sub-s. (!) of s. 5 which applied an<l so far as representation of traders was conccrnca, "persons licensed under sub-s. (l) of s. 7 in the notified area" were entitled to elect members from among themselves. We most, ·therefore, hold that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in takina fu the view that the order dated 7th December. 1972 was invalid so far as it purported to nominate tqrce members from among traders under the proviso to cl. (iv) of sub-s. (I) of s. 5.

The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs in this cour:t. •