http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: G.   V. GUNAYYA CHETTY & ANR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: V.   DASARATHARAMAIAH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/04/1975

BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. ALAGIRISWAMI, A. GOSWAMI, P.K.

CITATION:  1975 AIR 1277            1975 SCC  (2) 114

ACT: Andhra  Pradesh Agricultural Produce and Live-Stock  Markets Act, 1966. cl. (iv) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5 and proviso to cl.   (iv),   and  section  7   and   22-Market   committee, constitution of-Members representing traders to be  elected, but they are to be nominated by Government When market  com- mittee  is  constituted  for the  first  time-Nomination  of members representing traders to the newly constituted market committee after supersession, if legal.

HEADNOTE: The Government, by a notification issued under sec. 3,  sub- sec.  (3)  of the Andhra Pradesh  Agricultural  Produce  and Live-Stock Markets Act, 1966, declared the area comprised in Machilipatnam,  Bandar and Divi taluka to be  notified  area for  the  purposes  of  the Act.  This  was  followed  by  a notification dated 30th October, 1969 constituting a  Market Committee  for the notified area under s. 4, sub-s.  (1)  of the  Act.   The Market Committee was to  consist  of  twelve members to be appointed in the manner set out in s. 5,  sub. (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 livestock under  s.  5, sub-s.  (1), cl. (i), two were nominated by  the  Government from among traders under proviso to s. 5 sub-s. (1) cl. (iv) and the ’Agriculture Extension Officer.  Movva was nominated by the Government as departmental representative under s. 5, sub-s.  (1),  cl.  (iii)(a).  The  Chairman  of  the  Market Committee was elected on 24th January, 1970.  In consequence of the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Donde Rama  Rao  v.  State A.I.R. 1971 Andhra  Pradesh  353),  the Government  superseded the Market Committee for a period  of six  months  on  the ground that it  was  not  competent  to perform  the duties imposed on it by or under the Act.   The initial period of six months for which the Market  Committee was  superseded  was further extended and  just  before  the expiration of the extended period of supersession, the  Gov- ernment made an order dated 7th December, 1972  constituting a  new  Market Committee by nominating six  persons  out  of growers  of  agricultural produce and  owners  of  livestock under  s. 5, sub-s.(1), cl.(i), the President of  the  Divi- seema Cooperative Marketing Society, Avanigadda under s.  5,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

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 un- der the proviso to sub-cl. (iv) of s. 5, sub-s. (1).  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 representatives of growers  belonged to  Badar  Taluka  while all the  three  representatives  of traders belonged to Machilipatnam taluk.  Respondents Nos. 1 and  2,  who  were  two of  the  traders  from  Divi  Taluk, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 1693 of 1973 in the  High Court  of  Andhra Pradesh challenging the  validity  of  the order  dated  7th December, 1972 in so far as  it  nominated representatives of traders on the Market Committee under the Proviso  to cl. (iv) of subs. (1) 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  and  not  the Proviso  and, therefore, the Government was not entitled  to nominate representatives of traders but they were liable  to be  elected by traders licensed under s. 7, sub-s. (1)  from amongst  themselves.  The learned Single Judge of  the  High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.  Thereupon Respondents  1 and 2 preferred an appeal under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent to a Division Bench of the High Court. The  Division  Bench disagreed with the view  taken  by  the learned  Single  Judge  and held that  when  the  Government constituted the new Market Committee by its order dated  7th December,   1972  on  the  expiration  of  the   period   of supersession  of  the earlier Market Committee, it  did  not constitute a new 220 Market Committee for the first time, and therefore, the case was governed, not by the proviso, but by the main pan of  s. 5.  sub-s. (1), cl. (iv) and the order dated  7th  December, 1972  was  invalid in so far as it nominated  three  members from among traders purporting to act under the proviso to s. 5.  sub-s. (1), cl. (iv).  The appellant  thereupon  brought the  present  appeal with special leave obtained  from  this Court. Dismissing the appeal HELD  :  The main part of cl. (iv) of stib-s. (1)  of  s.  5 enacts that, as a general rule, members representing traders are  to be elected "by the persons licensed under  sub-s.(1) of s. 7 in the notified area from among themselves. But  the licencecontemplated under sub-s. (1) of s. 7 is a licence to be, granted by the MarketCommittee  and  therefore,  it must follow a fortiori that when a market committee is to be constituted for the first time, there would be no "  persons licensed  under sub-s. (1) of s. 7" in existence  who  could elect members on the Market Committee under the main part of cl.(iv)  of sub-s.(1) of s. 5. That is why the  proviso  was enacted  to deal with such a situation, it says that when  a Market  Committee is being constituted for the  first  time, the  elective method being obviously  inapplicable,  members representing traders shall be nominated by the Government in the  manner  set out there.  The Market Committee  which  is constituted  by  the Government on the  expiration  of the period  of  supersession must necessarily be  a  new  market committee vis-a-vis 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  ln  earlier  market committee constituted for the same notified area, though  it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

was  subsequently  superseded.  The proviso to cf.  (iv)  of sub-s.  (1) of s. 5 bad. therefore, no application  and  the Government was not entitled to nominate members representing traders on the Market Committee constituted by it under  the order dated 7th December, 1972.  It was the main part of cl. (iv) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5 which applied. [225H, 226ADE,  GH 227DH-F]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  Civil Appeal No. 1731 of 1974 Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated 27-8-74 of. the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 716 of 1973. S.V.  Gupte,  A.  V. Rangam and A.  Subhashini,  for  the appellant. A. Subba Rao, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI,  J.-This appeal, by special leave, raises  a  very short question of construction of certain provisions of  the Andhra  Pradesh Agricultural Produce and Live-Stock  Markets Act,  1966  (hereinafter  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 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 which  has  now  been enacted  in  almost  all  States of India  with  a  view  to providing   satisfactory  conditions  for  the  growers   of agricultural  produce to sell their produce on  equal  terms and  at reasonable prices.  Section 2 gives  definitions  of the 221 various  terms  used in the Act, While sec. 3  provides  for issue  of  notification  by  the  Government.  declaring   a specific  area  to be a notified  area for the  purposes  of this  Act in respect of any agricultural 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               notification,  a market committee  for,  every               notified  area’  from  such  date  as  may  be               specified  in the notification and the  market               committee  so  constituted  shall  be  a  body               corporate  by such name as the Government  may               specify   ’in  the said  notification,  having               perpetual  succession and a common  seal  with               power to acquire, hold and dispose of property               and  may,  by its corporate name, sue  and  be               sued." The  composition 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)   not  less than one-half of the  members,               to  be  appointed  by  the  Government,  after               consultation  with the Director of  Marketing,               from among the growers of agricultural produce               and  the owners of livestock and  products  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

             livestock in the notified area ;               (ii)one non-official from the notified area,               to  be  elected by the members  of  the  local               cooperative  marketing societies ; or  in  the               absence  of ;such societies to be  elected  as               specified in clause (iv)               (iii)(a)     one    representative,     having               jurisdiction  over the notified area,  of  the               Agricultural   Department   or   the    Animal               Husbandry  Department, to be appointed by  the               Government ;               (b)   two  representatives, one each,  of  the               municipality  within which the office  of  the               market  committee is located and of  the  gram               panchayats 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 representative  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               constituted in any notified area for the first               time, the Government shall appoint               222               the  members under this clause from out  of  a               panel of traders 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 subsections 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  term of office  of the members  of  the  market committee for a period not exceeding one year subject 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.  (1) of s. 6. That sub-section says that  on  the expiration  of the term of the office of the members of  the market  committee,  the Government  shall  reconstitute  the market  committee. Then follow certain other sections  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 may      produce it in extensor.               "Supersession of market committees.-(1) If  in               the   opinion  of  the  Government  a   market               committee  is  not  competent  to  perform  or               persistently  makes default in performing  the               duties imposed on it by or under this Act,  or               abuses its powers, they may, by  notification,               supersede  such  committee for  a  period  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

             exceeding  one year in the first instance  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  Chairman of  the  market  committee               shall be deemed to have vacated their offices;               (b)   all  the  assets vested  in  the  market               committee   shall,   subject   to   all    its               liabilities, vest in the Government.               223               (3)   Where   a  market  committee  has   been               superseded-               (a)   the Government may, by order, appoint  a               suitable  person  or persons to  exercise  the               powers and perform the functions of the market               committee    during   the   period   of    its               supersession  and transfer to such  person  or               persons.,  the assets and liabilities  of  the               superseded market committee as on the date  of               such transfer, and               (b)   the  Government, may at Any time  before               the expiration of the period of  supersession,               constitute  a new market committee under  sub-               section (1) of section 4 and transfer  thereto               the  assets and liabilities 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)   of   the  Act,  declared  the   area   comprised,   in Machilipatnam, Badar and Divi taluks to be notified area for the   purposes  of  the  Act.   This  was  followed   by   a notification dated 30th October, 1969 constituting a  Market Committee  for the notified area under s. 4, sub-s.  (1)  of the Act.  The Market Committee was to 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, sub-s.  (1), cl. (i), two were nominated by  the  Government from  among traders under the proviso to 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 does  not  appear from  the  record  whether  the  other  three  members  were appointed as contemplated by s. 5, sub-s. (1), cls. (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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

that date as provided in s. 5, sub-s. (3). It,  however,-appears that in the case of  Market  Committee constituted by the Government for some other notified areas, writ  petitions  were  filed in the  High  Court  of  Andhra Pradesh challenging the 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 Director  of Marketing before nominating members from  among the growers of agricultural produce and owners of  livestock in  the notified areas in regard to nominations  made  under the proviso to s. 5, sub-s. (1), cl. (iv), the challenge was based  on the ground that the nominations were made  by  the Government outside the panel of traders                             224 furnished  by the Director of Marketing.  These  grounds  of challenge  were  upheld  by the High  Court  in  a  decision reported in Donda Ram Rao v. State(1) and, it was held  that the nominations made under s. 5, sub-s. (1), cl. (i) and the proviso   to  cl.  (iv)  were  in  contravention  of   those respective provisions and were accordingly invalid.   Though this  decision was given in regard to the Market  Committees 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 (1) (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 the highest four validly appointed  members on the Market Committee’ and  the  quorum for a meeting- 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 save, 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  existing members of the Market Committee to be heard, passed an order dated November, 1971 under-section 22, sub-s. (1) 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 imposed on it by or under the Act.  The  consequence; of this supersession was that all the members of the  Market Committee were deemed to have vacated their offices and  all the  assets vested in the Market Committee, subject  to  all its liabilities, became vested in the Government. Vide  sub- s.  (2)  of s. 22.  The Government by another order  of  the same  date made under s. 22, sub-s. (3), cl.  (a)  appointed the  Assistant Director of Marketing to exercise the  powers and perform the functions of the Market Committee during the period  of its supersession.  It may be stated that none  of the  persons affected challenged the order  of  supersession made  by  the Government 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  persons  cut  of  growers  of  agricultural produce and owners of livestock under s. 5, sub-s. (1),  cl. (i),  the President of the Diviseema  Cooperative  Marketing Society,  Avanigadda under s. 5, ’sub-s. (1), cl. (ii),  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

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. (1).  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 representatives of growers    belonged to Badar taluk, while all    the   representatives   of   traders   belonged    to Machillipatnam taluk.  Respon- (1)  A.I.R. 1971 Andhra Pradesh 353. 225 dents  Nos.  1 and 2, who were two of the traders from  Divi Taluk,  therefore  filed Writ Petition No. 1693 of  1973  in the, High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the  validity of  the  order  dated 7th December, 1972 in  so  far  as  it nominated representatives of traders on the Market Committee under the Proviso to cl. (iv) of sub-s. (1) 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 and  not the Proviso and, therefore, the Government was  not entitled  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 nominated  by  the  Government, resisted  this  argument and defended the  order  dated  7th December,  1972.   The 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  Committee 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  panel  of traders  furnished  ’by the Director of  Marketing  and  the order  dated 7th December, 1972 did not suffer from any  in- firmity.   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  Division  Bench disagreed with the view  taken  by  the learned  Single  Judge  and held that  when  the  Government constituted the new Market Committee by its order dated  7th December,   1972  on  the  expiration  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 members from among traders  purporting to  act  under proviso to s. 5, sub-s. (1), cf.  (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 to which provision applied in the present  case the  main  part of cl. (iv) of sub-s. (1) of s.  5,  or  its proviso.   The answer to the question depends, upon  whether the Market Committee was constituted 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 enacts that,  as a  general  rule,  members representing traders  are  to  be 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. (1) of s. 7 is a licence  to  be granted  by  the Market Committee, and  therefore,  it  must

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

follow  a  fortiori that when a market committee  is  to  be constituted  for the first time, there would be no  "persons licensed  under sub-s. (1) of. s. 7" in existence who  could elect members on the Market Committee under the main part 226 of  cl. (iv) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5. That is why the  proviso was  enacted  to deal with such a situation.  It  says  that when  a Market Committee is being constituted for the  first time,  the  elective method  being  obviously  inapplicable, 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  cl. (iv)  of Subs. (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 office of its  members or its supersession, it is being constituted again? Let  us first take a case where a market committee has  been constituted for a notified area for the, first time and  the term of office of its members, whether original or extended, expires.  The Government is  then required  to  reconstitute the market committee under s. 6.   ’Reconstitute’, according to its plain natural connotation, means nothing  else   than constitute  again’.   The   Government  has,  therefore,  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 efflux  of  time.   The proviso  to cl. (iv) of sub-s. (1) 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. Then, 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. (1) of s. 4 as contemplated 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 must  necessarily  be a new market committee  vis-a-vis  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  committee  constituted for  the  same  notified area, though  it  was  subsequently superseded.   There is no scope here for  verbal  semantics. It  is  a simple question we have to ask for  ourselves:  is this  a market committee constituted for the first time  for this  notified  area or has there been  A  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  the  expiry  of  its supersession,  a new market committee is constituted by  the Government, it is impossible to see how it can be said  that the new market committee is a market 227 committee  constituted for the first time for this  notified

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

area.   Whether  a market committee is constituted  for  the first time 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 constituted under sub-s. (1) of s. 4. or a  market committee reconstituted under s. 6. Here  in  the  present case, there was  a  market  committee constituted  by  the  Government for the  notified  area  of Machilipatnam, Bandar 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,  1971.  It may be reiterated once again that  the supersession of 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 the order dated 7th December. 1972 on the expiration of the  period  of supersession of this  Market  Committee,  it undoubtedly constituted a new market committee new vis-a-vis the  old  which  was superseded-but that was  not  a  market committee  constituted for the first time for  the  notified area  of Machilipatnam, Bandar and Divi taluks.   There  was already  an earlier Market Committee for this notified  area 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  sub-s.  (1)  of  s.  5  had,  therefore,   no application and the Government was not entitled to  nominate members   representing  traders  on  the  Market   Committee constituted by it under the order dated 7th December,  1972. It was the main part of cl. (iv) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5 which applied  and  so  far  as  representation  of  traders   was concerned, "persons licensed under sub-s. (1) of s. 7 in the notified  area"  were entitled to elect members  from  among themselves.   We  must, therefore, hold  that  the  Division Bench  of the High Court was right in taking the  view  that the order dated 7th December, 1972 was invalid in so far  as it  purported to nominate three members from  among  traders under the proviso to cl. (iv) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs  in this court. V.M.K.                                 Appeal dismissed. 228