Chinnappa Reddy, J.:— 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 statutory 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 every 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 products of livestock in the notified area. The Government is also empowered to appoint a 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 Co-operative Marketing Societies. The members of the Gram Panchayats comprised in the notified area are required to elect 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 are to be elected by the persons licensed as traders under Section 7 of the Act. Where a Market Committee is constituted for the first time the Government is empowered to appoint the 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 violative 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 middlemen. The Municipality and the Panchayats have their representatives in the Market Committee merely to safeguard the interests of the Municipality and Panchayats which suffer a loss of revenue as soon as a Market Committee is constituted since under Section 29 they are barred from levying any fees on any agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock in a notified area. On the other hand, the representatives of 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 new 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 were declared as 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 as 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 for 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 consists of six names. None of them was appointed by the Government. The Proviso to Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act requires the Government to appoint representatives of traders from out of the panel submitted by the Director of Marketing. The Government instead of making appointments from out of the panel, made appointments outside the Panel directly in contravention of the proviso to Section 5(1)(iv). Section 5(1)(i) requires the Government to appoint representatives of growers after consultation with 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 panel 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 no 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 the Government may choose to appoint L.M N.O P.Q but before appointing them, the Government must consult the Director regarding their appointment. If the Government does not consult the Director about the appointment of L.M N.O P.Q then the appointment cannot be said to have 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 Chandramoules war Prasad v. The Patna High Court. W.P No. 349 of 1968 = (reported in (1969) 3 SCC 56 : 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 of the Constitution which prescribes that appointments of persons as District fudges shaft be made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court. Explaining Article 233 of the Constitution their Lordships observed:

“The underlying Idea of the Article Is that the Governor should make UP his mind after there has been a deliberation with the High Court. The High Court Is the body which is intimately familiar with the efficiency and quality of offcers who are fit to be promoted as District Judges. The High Court alone knows their merits as also demerits. This does not mean that the Governor must accept whatever advice is given by the High Court but the Article does require that the Governor should ascertain from the High Court its views on the merits or demerits of persons among whom the choice of promotion is to be limited. Jf the High Court recommends A while the Governor is of opinion that B's claim is superior to A's it is incum bent on the Governor to consult the High Court with regard to its proposal to appoint B and not A. If the Governor is to appoint without getting the views of the High Court about B's claims vis-a-vis A's to promotion, B's appointment cannot be said to be in compliance with Article 233 of the Constitution.”

3. Later again their Lordships observed:

“Consultation or deliberation is not complete or effective before the parties thereto make their respective points of view known to the other or others and discuss and examine the relative merits of their views. If one party makes a proposal to the other who has a counter proposal in his mind which is not communicated to the proposer the direction to give effect to the counter proposal without anything, more, cannot be said to have been issued after consultation.”

4. In the light of this judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it must be held that the appointment of respondents 4 to 11 in W.P No. 3115/69 was not made after consultation with the Director and was therefore made in contravention of Section 5(1)(i) of the Act. G.O Rt. No. 942 dated 17-7-1969 is there fore quashed. W.P No. 3115 of 4969 is allowed with costs.

5. In W.P No. 2952 of 1969 the facts are as as 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 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 panels 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.

6. 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 not in 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 to be appointed or he may himself be convinced that some of the four ‘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 those 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 within 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 of 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 notconsidered 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) All ER 60; Sewpujanrai Indrasanrai Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1958 SCJ 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.

7. In W.P No. 3070 of 1969 G.O Rt. No. 956/69 dated 19-7-1969 by which respondents 1 to 12 were appointed as members of the Market Committee of Tadepalligudem, Respondents 1 to 9 to represent growers and respondents 10 to 12 to represent traders is questioned. It Is undisputed that the names of Respondents 1 and 3 to 9 were not included in the list of persons recommended by the Director and the Government never consulted the Director regarding their appointment. It is also undisputed that Respondents 10 to 12 were not in the panel furnished by the Director under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. G.O Rt. No. 956 dated 19-7-1969 is therefore quashed. W.P No. 3070 of 1969 is allowed with costs.

8. The facts of W.P No. 366/70 are briefly as follows: The area comprising the taluks of Tuni, Kakinada Peddapuram, Pithapuram and Prattipadu was declared as a ‘notified area’ under Section 3 of the Act & the strength of its market committee was fixed at 16. According to the petitioner, the eighth respondent who is the brother of the Minister of the Government of Andhra Pradesh for Panchayat Raj, evolved a scheme to set himself elected as the Chairman of the Market Committee and to that end, used his political influence to bring about all manner of illegalities and irregularities in the appointment and election of members etc. Under the statute the Government was required after consultation with the Director, to appoint nine members from the growers of the area. The Government appointed Respondents 4 to 12. It is now admitted by the learned Government Pleader that while R-4. R-5, R-6, R-8, R-9 and R-10 were in the list submitted by the Director, R-7, R-11 and R-12 were not and that the Government did not consult the Director regarding the appointment of R-7, R-11 and R-12. The Government was also required to appoint three members to represent traders from out of a panel furnished by the Director. It is now admitted by the learned Government Pleader that R-15 alone figured in the panel furnished by the Director and not R-13 and R-14. In the light of our earlier discussion in connection with W.P No. 2952/69, we must hold that the appointment of respondents 4 to 15 to the Market Committee of Tuni is invalid. We may mention here that a perusal of the file relating to G.O Rt. No. 902 dated 14-7-1969 shows that the Minister for Agriculture himself passed orders appointing R-4 to R-15 as members of the Tuni Market Committee, but the file does not show the basis or information on which the Minister acted when he appointed R-7. R-11, R-12. R-13 and R-14 ignoring the recommendations made by the Director.

9. Section 5(1)(iii) requires the members of the Gram Panchayats in the notified area to elect one member to the Market Committee. On 19-1-1970 the District Panchayat Officer issued notices to the Sar-Panches of the several Gram Panchayats in the notified area reauesting them to attend a meeting to be held at Peddapuram on 12-2-1970 at 2 P.M to elect a representative of Panchayats to the Tuni Marketing Committee.’ On the face of it, the notices are illegal because it is the members of the several Gram Panchayats in the notified area that are required to elect a representative and not the Sar-Panches of the Gram Panchayats, under Section 5(1)(ii) of the Act the members of all the Co-operative Marketing Societies situated in the notified area are required to elect one representative to the Market Committee. According to the petitioners there was never any election by the members of all the Co-operative Marketing Societies but it was being given out that the 16th respondent had been elected to the Committee to represent Tuni Co-operative Marketing Society. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government and the other official respondents this allegation was not met. In the counter affidavit filed by the 8th respondent on behalf of the 16th respondent as well as the other respondents it was stated “it is not true to say that the 16th respondent was elected only as a member representing the Tuni Co-operative Marketing Society by the Board of Management of the said Society. He was elected as the representative of all Co-operative Marketing Societies situated in the taluks of Tuni, Prathipadu, Pithapuram. Peddapuram and Kakinada which constitute the notified area of the Tuni Market Committee, at a meeting convened by the Deputy Registrar. (Marketing and Fertilisers), Kakinada on 30-11-1969 at Tuni as per the provisions of sub-rule (3)(c) of Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969”. This statement is silent as to who were the participants at the meeting and whether the election was by the members of all the Co-operative Marketing Societies in the notified area or only by the members of the Tuni Co-operative Marketing Society. However, the learned counsel for the respondents produced before me a copy of the election notice issued by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 21-11-1969. This notice is addressed to the Presidents of the Co-operative Marketing Societies in Kakinada circle and requests the Presidents to intimate all the members of their societies to assemble in the premises of Sri Raja High School, Tuni on 30-11-1969 at 1 P.M to elect from among themselves a representative to the Market Committee, Tuni. It is impossible to construe this notice as a notice to the members of the Co-operative Marketing Societies in the notified area announcing the date of election of a representative. It is also impossible to hold that the meeting, if any, held on 30-11-1969 was a meeting of the members of the Co-operative Marketing Societies in the notified area. The election of the 16th respondent must therefore be held to be void as he was not elected by the electorate entitled to elect. While this was so, on 30-1-1970 the Assistant Director of Marketing issued a notice to the members of the Market Committee proposing to hold a meeting of the members at Tuni on 12-2-1970 at 11-A.M. for conducting the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Market Committee. It will be noticed that even the illegal meeting of Sar-Panches for electing a representative to the Market Committee, though summoned earlier, was convened for 12-2-1970 at 2 P.M at Peddapuram. It is impossible to understand why a meeting of the members of the Market Committee was convened by the Assistant Director for 12-2-1970 at 11 A.M at Tuni several miles away from Peddapuram in spite of the fect that a representative of the Panchayats was to be elected that day at 2 P.M at Peddapuram. It is difficult to accept the case of the respondents that the Assistant Director of Marketing did not know that the representative of the Panchayats was to be elected that day at 2 P.M The petitioners want us to infer that the date and time of election of Chairman and Vice-chairman was deliberately fixed to exclude the representative of the Panchayats from participating in such election. We cannot help but hold that the summoning of the meeting of the members of the Market Committee for 12-2-1970 at 11 A.M at Tuni is taintled with great suspicion. Sri Babul Reddy learned counsel for the petitioners also referred us to other circumstances to strengthen the suspicion that all is not well with the appointment and election of memebers of the Market Committee. He pointed out to us that although the notified area consists of as many as 500 villages out of the twelve persons appointed under Section 5(1)(i) and 5 (1)(iv) three are from Jagapathinagaram and three from Gollaprolu. He submitted that Jagapathinagaram is the village of the eighth respondent, a person wielding lot of political influence as the brother of the Minister for Panchayat Raj. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, that he evolved a scheme to have his supporters appointed to the Market Committee so as to get himself elected as Chairman. Gollaprolu is stated to be the village of the son-in-law of the brother of the 8th respondent. The respondents contend that it was but an accident that date of election of the representative of the Panchayats was proposed to be held after the time when the meeting of the members of the Market Committee was proposed to be held. They also contend that the choice of three members from Jagapathinagaram and three from Gollaprolu was not actuated by any improper motive. Having regard to the several circumstances of the case namely that there was a contravention of Section 5(1)(i) in that there was no consultation with the Director of Marketing regarding the appointment of some of the members, that there was a contravention of Section 5(1)(ii) In that there was no meeting of the members of all the co-operative Marketing Societies in the notified area to elect a representative, that there was a contravention of Section 5(1)(iii)(b) in that while the provision required the representative to be elected by all the members of Gram Panchayats, notices were Issued only Sar-Panches that there was a contravention of Section 5(1)(iv) in that the members were appointed outside the panel furnished by the Directors of Marketing though the provision required that they should be out of the panel and that the date and time of election of a represenative of the Panchayats and the date and time of election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman were so fixed that it was impossible for the representative of Panchayats to participate in the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman, we are forced to hold that nothing has been done in connection with the composition of the Market Committee of Tuni and election of its Chairman and Vice-Chairman in accordance with the statutory provisions. There is every room for suspicion that, as alleged by the petitioners, political influence has played a large part in directing every step taken in connection with the composition of the Market Committee of Tuni and the election of its Chairman and Vice-Chairman. We are told that the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman was held on 12-2-1970 as this Court had not granted stay. We have no hesitation to declare the election void. This result is inevitable since we have found that the appointment or election of all but one member who participated in the election on 12-2-1970 is vitiated by illegality. W.P No. 366/70 is allowed with costs. The appointment of respondents 4 to 15 to the Tuni Market Committee and the election of the 16th respondent to the committee are declared invalid. The elections held in pursuance of the notices dated 19-1-1970 and 30-1-1970 to elect a representative of Panchayats and Chairman and Vice-Chairman are also declared invalid.

10. In W.P No. 3781/69 the facts are as follows: In exercise of its power under Section 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act the Government of Andhra Pradesh Published a notification dated 29-10-1968 declaring the area comprising the Taluks of Tadepalligudem, Tanuku, Kovvur and Polavaram in West Godavari District as a notified area. By G.O Rt. No. 956 dated 19-7-1969 the Government also appointed members of the Market Committee for the notified area to represent growers and traders. This G.O Is the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 3070/69. On 7-10-1969 the Government of Andhra Pradesh in purported exercise of its power under Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of Act XVI of 1966 and In partial modification of the notification dated 29-10-1968 published G.O Ms. No. 1831 dated 7-10-1969 proposing to declare (1) Tadepalligudem Taluk (2) Tanuku Taluk and (3) the area comprising Kovvur and Polavaram taluks as separate notified areas. Objections and suggestions were invited from interested persons within 30 days of the publication of the notification in the Gazette. The petitioners who were two of the persons appointed to represent growers under G.O Rt. No. 956 dated 19-7-1969 have filed this application for the issue of a writ to quash G.O Ms. No. 1831 dated 7-10-1969. It is the contention of the petitioners that the power of the Government to declare notified areas under Section 3(3) having been once exercised came to an end and it was therefore not open to the Government to issue any fresh notification declaring areas already covered by the previous notification as notified areas. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the proposal to split up the Tadepalligudem market area is also not a bona fide exercise of power. The proposal has been initiated to satisfy the political ambitions of Sri Ch. Subba Rao Chowdary a member of the Legislative Council. The petitioners are obviously right in their contentions that the power of the Government to declare an area as a notified area can be exercised only once and that the Government is exhausted of its power as soon as it makes a declaration. If the Government wants to exclude areas included in the notified area from the notified area it must proceed under the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Act which enables the Government by notification, to (a) exclude from a notified area, any area comprised therein, or (b) include in any notified area, any area specified in such notification. In such an event, the Government must specify the area which it treats as the parent notified area and which areas are to be excluded from the notified area. The areas excluded from the notified area may thereafter be declared as one or more notified areas in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(1)(2) and (3). There would then be no bar to such areas being declared as notified areas since they have ceased to be parts of an area already notified. That is not what the Government has purported to do in the present case. The notification is not issued under Section 3(4) of the Act and there is no indication as to which area is being excluded from the original notified area. The procedure indicated by us and which is the only procedure permissible under the Act is not an empty or idle formality. The reason is this: persons appointed or elected to the Market Committee of a notified area in the absence of any other statutory disability will not cease to be members of the market committee merely because some area is excluded from the notified area at a later stage. Their right to continue as members cannot be taken away by the simple mechanics of issuing a second notification under Section 3(3). The procedure indicated by us will also maintain continuity and give some meaning to the provisions of Section 4(1) which states that a market committee shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession. If on the other hand the Government has the right to exercise the power under Section 3(1)(2) and (3) as often as it chooses in respect of the same area or areas. Section 3(4) and Section 4(1) will be rendered meaningless. We therefore hold that G.O Ms. No. 1831 dated 7-10-1969 issued under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Act is unauthorised and illegal. It is therefore quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed with costs.

11. It will be open to the Government to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

12. Advocates fee Is fixed at Rupees Rs. 100/- in each of the Writ Petitions.

13. Petitions allowed.