( 1 ) THE petitioner is an agriculturist residing within the jurisdiction of the agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ron, having its market-yard at hole-Alur. He has questioned in this writ petition the authority of respondent No. 3, Shankarappa son of Sangappa (wrongly shown as Sannappa in the notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner) to represent the farmers Service Co-operative Society Limited, Gajendragad, respondent No. 4, under clause (v) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 of the Karnataka Agricultural produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). Similarly, he has questioned the authority of respondent No. 5, the administrator Taluk Development Boord, Ron, to act as a member of the said committee. ( 2 ) THE contention of the petitioner as against respondent No. 3 is that he had not been elected at an election held by a returning officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose by the members of the managing committee of respondent No. 4; but he had been only nominated by them by a resolution passed by them at a meeting. The above fact remains uncontroverted. ( 3 ) IN Service Co-operative Society Ltd. , Chalkapur. v. Dy. Commissioner, Bidar, 1975 2 Karjlj. 420. it has been held by this Court that a nomination made under similar circumstances would not clothe the person nominated with the authority to function as a member of the market committee. Following the said decision, the declaration made by the Deputy Commissioner declaring that respondent No. 3 had been elected as a member of the market committee, Ron, under clause (v) of sub-sec (1) of S. 11 of the Act is set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed not to participate in the proceedings of the market committee pursuant to the said declaration. ( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioner as against respondent No. 5 is that an Administrator of a Taluk Development Board can function as an ex-officio member of the committee only where a person had been elected by the members of the Taluk Development Board ujcl. (vi) of sub-sec (1) of s. 11 of the Act and the Taluk Development Board is superseded sfter such election. Dependence was placed on the language of sub-sec. (2) of S. 11 of the Act in support of the above contention. (vi) of sub-sec (1) of s. 11 of the Act and the Taluk Development Board is superseded sfter such election. Dependence was placed on the language of sub-sec. (2) of S. 11 of the Act in support of the above contention. It reads as follows :" Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec (1), when a cooperative society, Taluk Development Board or local authority which is represented on the market committee is superseded, the administrator or any other person entitled to exercise the powers and perform the functions of such society, Taluk Development, Board or local authority shall, if not disqualified under S. 16, ex-officio be a member of the market committee. " ( 5 ) IT was argued that the words "taluk Development Board. . . . . . . which is represented on the market committee is superseded, "would suggest that the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 11 of the Act would not apply to a case where no person is elected as a representative of the Boaru and an administrator is functioning on the date of the election. It is no doubt true that the language of sub-sec. (2) of S. 11 of the Act is not happy. But, in my opinion, it is reasonable to construe in the context in which the said sub-sec, appears that the Legislature never intended that the Administrator of a Taluk Development Board or a Co-operative Society or a Local authority functioning on the date of the election should not represent the institution concerned on the market committee. The words "which is represented on the market committee" in the context in which they are used, have to be understood as "which has to be represented on the market committee" by virtue of sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 of the Act. Respondent No. 5, who was the administrator of the Taluk Development Board on the date of the election is therefore entitled to function as a member of the market Committee. The contention urged by the petitioner is therefore rejected. The writ petition is dismissed in so far as respondent No. 5 is concerned. ( 6 ) THE concerned authority shall proceed to fill up the vacancy caused by the setting aside of the declaration made in respect of respondent No. 3 in accordance with law. No costs. --- *** --- .