# • • 2H G. V. GUNAYYA CHEITY & ANR v. V. DASARATHARAMAJAH & ORS - **Citation:** [1975] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 219 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1975-04-21 - **Bench:** A. Alag!R!Swam!, P. N. Bhagwat!, P. K. Goswami - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2h-g-v-gunayya-cheity-anr-v-v-dasaratharamajah-ors-6511 - **Pages:** 9 ## Headnote B A ndhra Pradesh Agricultural Prvduce and Live-Stock Markets Act_. 1966, cl. (iv) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5 and proviso to cl. (ir), and section 7 and 2z.!._tirfarket comniiJtee, constitution of-1Uen1bers . representing traders to be elected, bur they are to be nominated by Govern1nent H1heri 111arket contniittee is constituted for the first thne-1\Tornir.ation of menibers reprcsentin;: tradl?rs to the newlv constituted fnarket cot11111ittee after sttpersession, if - C legal. • The Governn1ent, by a notificalion issued under sec .. 3, ~ub-sec. (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricnltural Produce and Live-Stock ?lfarkets 1\ct, 1966, declared the area compri~ed in Machilipatnam, Bandar and Divi taluka to be notified area for the purposes of the Act. Th.is waS .follO\\'ed by a notification dated 30th October, 1969 constih1ting a i\larket Con1mittee for the notifie4 area under s. 4, sub-s. (1) of the Act. The Market Committee was to conD sist of twelve men1bers to b.e appointed in the n1anner set out ins. 5, sub-s. (1) -0f the Act. Six out of these twelve members \\'ere nominated hy the Go\'c1nment from among . the gro\vcrs of agricultural produce and owners of livestock undef s. 5, snb-s. (1), cl. (i), two were nominat~d by the Govcrnn1ent from among traders under proviso to s. 5 sub-~. (1) cl. (iv_) and the Agriculh1re Extension Ollicer. M'ovva was nom.inated by the Government as dcpartn1ental representative under s. 5, snb-s. (1), cl. (iii)(a). The Chairmcin of the l\Iarket Comn1ittee was elected on 24th January, 1970. Jn. consequence of the E judgment of the High Court of _Andhra Pradesh in Donde Ran1a Rao v. State A.I.R. 1971 Andhra Pradesh 353), the Government superseded 1he Market Committee. for a pcr'iod of six months on the ground that it was not competent to perform the duties imposed on it by or _un'der the Act. The initial period of "Six months for which the Market Comn1ittee v:as. superseded \Vas further extent.led and just before the expiration of the extended period of supersession, the Government made an order dated 7th December, 1972 constituting a f!eW l\.!arkct Committee by nominating six persons out of growers of agric,ultural produce and F 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 Agricultural Extension Officer. ~fovva as departmental representatives under s. 5, sub-s. (1 ), cl. (iii) (a) nnd three persons representing traders under the proviso to snb-cl. (iv) of s. 5, sub-s. (l). Though Divi taluk formed pa'ft of the notified area, no grower or trader fom Divi Taluk _was nominated 'On the Market Committee; all the six representatives of growers belonged to Badar Taluka \Vhile nll the three representatives of traders belonged to Machi!ipatnam taluk. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who we'fe two of the traders from G Divi Taluk, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 1693 of 1973 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh cha1lenging the validity of the order dated 7lh December, 1972 in so far as it nominated 'fepresentatives of traders on the A-Iarket Con1mittee under the Proviso to cl. {iv) of s11b-s. (1) of s. 5. The argun1ent of re~pondent~ Nos. 1. and 2 was that it \vas the main part of cl. (iv) of sub-s.(J) of s. 5 \Vh1ch app!Ied and not the Proviso and, therefore the Government \Vas not entitled to nominate re·presentatives of traders but tbev were liable to be elected by traders licensed. under s. 7, sub-s. (1) from amo-Ilgst·themselves. The learned Single Judge of the High C.ourt dismissed the Writ.. Petiiion. Thereupon H Respondents 1 and 2 prefe1Ted nn appeal under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent to a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench disagreed \Vith the view taken by the learned Singie Ju.dge and. held that when the Government constituted the new ~.farket Committee by It~ orde'f dated 7_th December, 197? on !he expiratiri.n of the pP.riod of supcrsess1on of the earher Market Comm1tteei ## Text • .. • 2H G. V. GUNAYYA CHEITY & ANR v. V. DASARATHARAMAJAH & ORS. April 21, 1975 [A. ALAG!R!SWAM!, P. N. BHAGWAT! AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.) B A ndhra Pradesh Agricultural Prvduce and Live-Stock Markets Act_. 1966, cl. (iv) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5 and proviso to cl. (ir), and section 7 and 2z.!._tirfarket comniiJtee, constitution of-1Uen1bers . representing traders to be elected, bur they are to be nominated by Govern1nent H1heri 111arket contniittee is constituted for the first thne-1\Tornir.ation of menibers reprcsentin;: tradl?rs to the newlv constituted fnarket cot11111ittee after sttpersession, if - C legal. • The Governn1ent, by a notificalion issued under sec .. 3, ~ub-sec. (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricnltural Produce and Live-Stock ?lfarkets 1\ct, 1966, declared the area compri~ed in Machilipatnam, Bandar and Divi taluka to be notified area for the purposes of the Act. Th.is waS .follO\\'ed by a notification dated 30th October, 1969 constih1ting a i\larket Con1mittee for the notifie4 area under s. 4, sub-s. (1) of the Act. The Market Committee was to conD sist of twelve men1bers to b.e appointed in the n1anner set out ins. 5, sub-s. (1) -0f the Act. Six out of these twelve members \\'ere nominated hy the Go\'c1nment from among . the gro\vcrs of agricultural produce and owners of livestock undef s. 5, snb-s. (1), cl. (i), two were nominat~d by the Govcrnn1ent from among traders under proviso to s. 5 sub-~. (1) cl. (iv_) and the Agriculh1re Extension Ollicer. M'ovva was nom.inated by the Government as dcpartn1ental representative under s. 5, snb-s. (1), cl. (iii)(a). The Chairmcin of the l\Iarket Comn1ittee was elected on 24th January, 1970. Jn. consequence of the E judgment of the High Court of _Andhra Pradesh in Donde Ran1a Rao v. State A.I.R. 1971 Andhra Pradesh 353), the Government superseded 1he Market Committee. for a pcr'iod of six months on the ground that it was not competent to perform the duties imposed on it by or _un'der the Act. The initial period of "Six months for which the Market Comn1ittee v:as. superseded \Vas further extent.led and just before the expiration of the extended period of supersession, the Government made an order dated 7th December, 1972 constituting a f!eW l\.!arkct Committee by nominating six persons out of growers of agric,ultural produce and F 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 Agricultural Extension Officer. ~fovva as departmental representatives under s. 5, sub-s. (1 ), cl. (iii) (a) nnd three persons representing traders under the proviso to snb-cl. (iv) of s. 5, sub-s. (l). Though Divi taluk formed pa'ft of the notified area, no grower or trader fom Divi Taluk _was nominated 'On the Market Committee; all the six representatives of growers belonged to Badar Taluka \Vhile nll the three representatives of traders belonged to Machi!ipatnam taluk. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who we'fe two of the traders from G Divi Taluk, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 1693 of 1973 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh cha1lenging the validity of the order dated 7lh December, 1972 in so far as it nominated 'fepresentatives of traders on the A-Iarket Con1mittee under the Proviso to cl. {iv) of s11b-s. (1) of s. 5. The argun1ent of re~pondent~ Nos. 1. and 2 was that it \vas the main part of cl. (iv) of sub-s.(J) of s. 5 \Vh1ch app!Ied and not the Proviso and, therefore the Government \Vas not entitled to nominate re·presentatives of traders but tbev were liable to be elected by traders licensed. under s. 7, sub-s. (1) from amo-Ilgst·themselves. The learned Single Judge of the High C.ourt dismissed the Writ.. Petiiion. Thereupon H Respondents 1 and 2 prefe1Ted nn appeal under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent to a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench disagreed \Vith the view taken by the learned Singie Ju.dge and. held that when the Government constituted the new ~.farket Committee by It~ orde'f dated 7_th December, 197? on !he expiratiri.n of the pP.riod of supcrsess1on of the earher Market Comm1tteei it did not constitute a new . - "* _ .. , A 220 SUPREME COORT REPORTS [1975] SUPP. s.c.n. A J\Iarkct Committee for the first time, and therefore, the case \Vas governed., not by the proviso, but by the main pmt of s. 5, sub-s. (1), cl. (iv) and the order dated' 7th .December, 1972 was invalid in so far as it non1inatecl three members from among traders purporting to act under the proviso to s. 5r sub-s. (1), cl. (iv). The appellant thereupon brol!ght the present appcfll ¥.rfth special leave obtained from this Court. B c D E F G Di.smissing the appeal , lfELD: The main part of cl. (iv) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5 enacts t11at, 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 an1ong then1selves"'. 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 follow a forJiori that \Vhen a market comn1.ittee is to be constituted for the ffrst time, there wouJd be no "persons licensed under sub-s. (1) of s. T" in existence who could ekct members on the Market <::ommittee under the main part of cl.(iv) of sub-s-(1) of s. 5. That is \Vhy the proviso was enacted to deal with such a sit11ation, it says that \\·hen -a !\1arket Committee is being constituted for the first time, the clectiYe methet committee so constituted. ~hall be a body corporate by such name as the Government may specify in the said notific<1.tion, having 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." B 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 , b 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 sbcieties ; or in the absence of ~uch 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 Hus!iandry Department, to be appointed by the Governmep.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 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 cortstituted in any notified area for the first time, the Government shall appoint F G H 222 A B c SUPREME CO_l.JRT REPORTS [1975] SUPP. S.C.R. 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 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 D of the members of the market committee, the Government .shall reconstitute 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 reproduce it in extenso. E F "Supersession of market committees.-(!) lf 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 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. H the following consequences shall ensue- (a) all the members as well as the Chairman and ViceChairma·n ·of the fr1arket committee shall be deemed to have vacated their oftices; (b) all. the assets vested in the market- committee shall, subject to all its liabilities, vest in th!> Government. .. . .... • • • • • G. v .. GUNAYYA CHETTY v. V. DASARATHMA~!A!AH (Blzagwati, J.) 223 (3) Where a market con1mittce has been supersededA (a) the Government may, by order, appoint a suitable person or persons to exercise the powers and perform 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 expiration of the period of supcrscssion, 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) 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 constituting a Market Committee for the notified area under s. 4, sub-s. ( 1) of the Act. The Market Committee was lo consist of twelve members 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 nominated 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 contemplated 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 constituted by , the Government for some other notified areas, writ petitions 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 requirement 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 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 nominations were made by the Government outside the panel of traders B c E F G H • 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] SUPP. S.C.R. A 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 contravention of those respective provisions and were accordingly invalid. Though this decision was given in regard to the Market Committee& B 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 appointC ed 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 &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 existD, 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 imposed on it by or under the Act. The consequence of this supersession was that aU the members of the Market Committee were E 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 perF sons 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 G 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 H 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 representatives of growers hclong'-.d to Badar taluk, while all the representatives of traders belonged to Machillipatnam -taluk. Rcspon- (1) A.I.R. 1971 Andhra Pradesh 353. ... • .. • r - . •• ,. • G. v, GUNAYYA CHETT,Y v. v. DASARATHl\RAMAIAH (Bhagwati, !.) 22; 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 d,ated 7th December, 197Z in so far as iL nominated representatives of traders 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 and not the Proviso and, therefore, the Government was n.ot 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. ]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 infirnlity. 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 Jiidge and held that when the Government constituted the new Market Committee by its order dated 7th December, 1972 on th~ 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 ), cl. (iv). The appellant thereupon brought the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court. A n c E F The sole question that arises for determination in this appeal is G 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 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 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 H 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 market 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 226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] SUPP. S.C.R. A B c 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 constituted for a notified area for the first time and the term of ollicc of its members, whether original or extended, expires. The Government 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. E (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 F the expiry of the period of supersession, a new market committee is constituted by the Government under sub-s. (I) 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 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 G 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 cu1nmittee constituted for· the first time for this notified area or has H 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 constituted 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 December, 1972 on the expiration. of the period of supcrsession of this Market Committee, it undoubtedly constituted a m:w 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 ar- E F G