DONDA RAMA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of these writ petitions expose the blatant and systematic manner in which the executive Government has consistently mocked at legislative mandates and flouted statuary provisions in connection with the constitution and composition of Market Committee under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act. 1966. Section 3 of the Act provides for the declaration of an area as a notified area and Section 4 provides for the constitution of a Market Committee for each notified area. Section 5 prescribes that ere market committee shall consist of not less than twelve and not more than sixteen members, the number to be fixed by the Government. The Government is empowered to appoint after consultation with the Director of Marketing not less than half the members from among the growers of agricultural produce and owners of livestock and produces of livestock in the notified area. The Government is empowered to appoint after consultation with the Director of Marketing not less than half the members from among the growers of agricultural produce and owners of livestock and products of livestock in the notified area. The Government is also empowered to appoint to representative of the agricultural Department or Animal Husbandry Department to be a member of the Committee. One member is to be elected by the members of the local Cooperative Marketing Societies. The members of the gram Panchayats comprised in the notified area are required to subject one member. The members of the municipality where the office of the market committee is located are required to elect a member but if there is no such municipality, the members of the Gram Panchayats in the notified area are required to elect a second member. The remaining members of the Market Committee members of the Market Committee are to be elected by the persons silenced as traders under Section 7 of the Act. Where a Market Committee is consitued for the first time the Government is empowered to appoint in representatives of the traders from out of a panel of traders furnished by the Director of Marketing to the Government. Section 5(2) provides for the election of a Chairman and Vice-Chairman but the Official member representing the Agricultural Department or Animal Husbandry Department and the representatives of the Municipality and Gram Panchayats are not eligible to be elected as Chairman and Vice-Chairman. We may dispose of at this stage a question raised by the petitioners in some of the Writ Petitions that Section 5(2) is discriminatory and violate of Article 14 of the Constitution . We do not think that there is any substance in the objection to the validity of Section 5 (2). The official member is excluded obviously because it is not considered desirable for an official to seek election to an office where the electorate consists of Non-Officials. The members of the Municipality and Gram- Panchayats are excluded because they are not directly interested in promoting the object of the Act which is to bring together the producer and the trader and to eliminate middleman. The Municipality and the Panchayats have their representative in the Market Committee merely to safeguard the interest of the Municipality and Panchayats which suffer a loss of revenue as soon as a Market Committee is venue as soon as a Market Committee is constituted since under Section 29 they are barred from leying any fees on any agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock in a notified area. On the other hand, the representatives of the growers, the representatives of traders and the representatives of Co-operative Marketing Societies are persons who are directly interested in promoting the object of the Act. The classification of the members, therefore is clear and the nexus between the classification and the object of the Act is patently reasonable. Section 5(2) of the Act, in our view, does not suffer from the vice of discrimination.

(2.) Having disposed of the contention regarding the views of Section 5(2) of the Act, we may now proceed to consider the other contentions raised in these Writ Petitions. The facts in W.P. No. 3115/69 are as follows: By a notification dated 29-10-1968, the area comprising the Taluks of Eluru and Chinthalapudi in West Godavary district wee declared ass a notified area under Section 3(3) of the Act. By another notification dated 4-4-1969 the strength of the Market Committee for this area was fixed at 14. By G. O. Rt No. 942 dated 17-7-1969 the Government of Andhra Pradesh appointed respondents 4 to 11 ass members of the Market Committee to represent the growers under Section 5(1) of the Act. By the same notification the Government appointed respondents 12 and 13 as members of the Market Committee to represent the traders under the proviso to Section 5(1) (iv) of the Act. The appointment of these ten persons as members of the Market Committee is questioned in this Writ Petition. The petitioners allege in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the appointment of respondents 4 to 11 was not made after consultation with the Director of Marketing as contemplated by Section 5(1) (I) and that the appointment of respondents 12 and 13 was not made from out of a panel furnished by the Director of Marketing. The petitioners further allege that the Director of Marketing submitted two panels of names of appointment as members of the Committee to represent growers and traders and that not one person included in either of the panels was appointed by the Government. These facts are not disputed by the respondents and the learned Government Pleader has placed before me the panels of names submitted by the Director of Marketing. The panel prepared by the Director of Marketing to represent growers consists of twelve names while the panel to represent traders consist of six names. None of them was appointed by the Government. The Proviso to Section 5(1) (fiv) of the Act requires the Government to appoint representatives of traders from out of the panel submitted by the Director of Marketing. It is clear that there was no consultation with the Director of Marketing regarding the appointment of Respondents 4 to 11. It was urged by the learned Government pleader that consultation with the Director was not mandatory and that even if it was mandatory, the Government was not bound to accept the names recommended by the Director and that they may choose some or none from the anneal submitted by the Director. we are unable to agree there is nothing in Section 5 or anywhere else in the Act to indicate that consultation with the Director is not mandatory. There is not warrant to hold that the word shall occurring in Section 5(1) (I) means something other than shall. It is true that the Government is at liberty to appoint persons not recommended by the Director. but even in regard to such persons the Director must be consulted. If the Director recommends A.B.C.D.E.F. G., the Government may choose to appoint L.M.N.O.P.Q/ but before appointing them, the Government must consult the Director regarding their appoint. If the Government does not consult the Director about the appointment of L.M.N.P.Q. then been made after consultation with the Director. This position has now been clarified by a recent judgment of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Chandramouleswar Prasad v. The Patna High Court . W.P. No. 349 of 1968= (reported in AIR 1970 SC 370)which was brought to our notice by Sri P.A. Choudhary learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No 2952/69. The case arose under Article 233 o the Constitution which prescribes that appointments of persons as Direct Judges shall be made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court. Ex- planning Article 233 of the Constitution their Lordships observed:

(3.) In W.P.No.2952 of 19698 the facts are as are follows: Narasapur Taluk of West Godavary District was declared as a notified area under Section 3 of the Act and a Market Committee designated as the Palakol Agricultural Market Committee was constituted under Section 4 of the Act for that area. The strength of the Committee was fixed as 14. By G.O. Rt. No. 986 dated 24-7-1969 the Government appointed respondents 4 to 12 as members of the committee to represent growers under Section 5 (1) (I) of the Act, and respondents 13 to 15 to represent traders under Section 5 (1) (iv) of the Act. Of the eight persons appointed to represent growers, except R.8 the others were not recommended by the Director of Marketing and it is also admitted by the learned Government Pleader that the Government did not consult the Director regarding the appointment of the others. Similarly of the three persons appointed to represent traders. R-13 alone was out of the panel submitted by the Director under Section 5(1) (iv), but R. 14 and R. 15 were from outside the panel. It is thus clear that there was a clear contravention of the provisions of Section 5 (1) (I) and the Proviso to section 5 (1) (iv) of the Act. The Learned Government Pleader however submitted that it is not necessary to quash the entire G.O. but that it may be upheld at least to the extent of appointment of R-8 and R-13 since both of them were included in the paleness submitted by the Director and it could therefore be said that the appointment of R-8 was made after consultation with the Director and the appointment of R-13 out of the panel submitted by the Director. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the power of appointment under section 5 (1) of the Act is an integrated power which can be exercised but once in the manner provided by the Act and noting several stages. The learned counsel urged that the Act does not contemplate a piecemeal exercise of power by the Government and if any one of the appointments is found to be bad. then all the appointments must go so that the Government may exercise its power in accordance with law. There appears to be good reason for accepting the submission of the learned counsel. Suppose in a given case the Director recommends the names of 12 persons for appointment of eight members. Suppose the Government appoints four from the list submitted by the Director and four from outside the list. If the Government consults the Director again, the Director may be able to convince the Government that the four outsiders ought not be to be appointed or he may himself be convinced that some of the fourt outsiders are really worthy of being appointed but he may convince the Government. in such an event that some of the eight persons in the list submitted by him and not chosen by the Government ought to be preferred to chosen by the Government from out of those recommended by him. Since the eight persons are to represent the growers of the entire area it is possible that several adjustments must be made to give representation to different areas with the notified area and to producers of different committees. Conflicting interests may have to be counter-balanced and the consultation with the Director must therefore be in order to make all the appointments at the same time. If that be so, it follows that the Government must exercise its power all at once or not at all. There is also another consideration which takes us to the same end. Section 5 (1) (I) empowers the Government to appoint not less than half the members from among growers of the notified area, after consultation with the Director. It follows that the Government cannot appoint less than half the members from growers. If they do, they would be acting in contravention of the provisions of Section 5 (1) (I) of the Act. The Government obviously cannot also appoint less than half the members in the first instance and reserve to itself the power to appoint the rest at a later stage. If, in a case, the Court holds that the appointment o some members is bad and proceeds to uphold the appointment of the others who may be less than half the total strength the Court, in effect. would be permitting the Government to appoint less than half the members in the first instance and the rest at a later stage. That would be against the provisions of Section 5(1) (i).We are therefore convinced that the power under Section 5(1)(I) must be exercised as a whole and all at once. We have not considered it necessary to refer to the cases cited by Mr. Choudari as we think that the Question of severance always a difficult question to resolve, has to be decided on the provisions and peculiarities of the individual statute. It is enough to mention the cases. They are Pyx Granite Co. Ltd. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, (1958) 1 All ER 625; Kingsway Investments Ltd. v. Kent C. C. (1969) 1 All ER 60; sewpujanrai Indrasanrai 1199 = (AIR 1958 SC 845). In view of the foregoing discussion G.O. Rt. No.986 dated 24-7-1969 is quashed W. P. No. 2952 of 1969 is allowed with costs.