Judgment :- (This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dt.3.8.09, passed by the R4, [Produced as Ann-A). The facts and the question of law involved in all these writ petitions are common and therefore a common order is passed. For convenience, the parties are referred to their status in W.P.Nos. 23859-866/2009. 2. The 1st respondent is Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee and the 2nd respondent is its Secretary. The 1st Respondent Committee consists of 13 elected members and 3 nominated members by the Government. The petitioners No.1 to 8 are the members of the 1st Respondent Committee. On 18.06.2008, the members of the First Respondent Committee unanimously elected the 1st petitioner as its President. After one year, on 15.07.2009, Eight members of the 1st Respondent Committee submitted a letter in Form No.27 as per Annexure-B to the 2nd respondent expressing their no confidence in the 1st petitioner. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent issued a notice on 26.07.2009 fixing the meeting of all the members of the 1st Respondent Committee on 04.08.2009 to consider the motion of confidence as per Annexure-E. A day before the meeting i.e., on 03.08.2009, the 3rd Respondent/Government through 4th Respondent/Under Secretary nominated the 5th Respondent as member of the 1st Respondent Committee, under the category of Agricultural Co-operative Processing Societies as specified under Sec.11(V) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1996 (for short, the ‘Act’). By the nomination of 5th Respondent as member of the 1st Respondent Committee, the strength of the Committee members was increased from 16 to 17. In the meeting held on 04.08.2009, Nine Committee members including 5th Respondent voted in favour of the motion and the petitioners Nos.1 to 8 voted against the motion by raising their hands. By a simple majority of 01 vote, the motion of confidence against the 1st petitioner was passed. The petitioners being aggrieved by the nomination of the 5th Respondent as member of the 1st Respondent Committee as per Annexure-A and the resolution of the meeting dated 04.08.2009 expressing no confidence on the 1st petitioner as per Annexure-B are before this Court in W.P.23859-66/2009. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition No.23859-866/2009, Government by their order dated 08.09.2009 cancelled the nomination of the 5th Respondent. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition No.23859-866/2009, Government by their order dated 08.09.2009 cancelled the nomination of the 5th Respondent. Therefore, the 5th Respondent is before this Court in W.P.No.27562/2009 for a writ of certiorari to quash the Government Order dated 08.09.2009 cancelling his nomination as Committee member of the 1st Respondent. 4. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners contend that 5th Respondent is not a Director of the Regional Oil Seed Growers of the Co-operative Society (for short, the ‘Processing Society’) and therefore he is not eligible to be nominated as Committee member of the 1st Respondent. Further, the Processing Society had no valid license to process the notified agricultural produce from the 1st Respondent and as such, no managing committee member from the said Processing Society can be nominated as member of the 1st Respondent Committee. Since the 5th Respondent is not a member of the Processing Society and further the said Society had no valid license to carry on its business in processing, the nomination of 5th Respondent is void ab initio. Therefore, he contends that the nomination of the 5th Respondent is liable to be quashed. The one vote of 5th Respondent in the meeting held on 04.08.2009 had materially altered the resolution on the no confidence motion against the 1st petitioner and therefore the same is liable to be quashed. It is further contended to declare the 1st petitioner as the President of the 1st Respondent Committee. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) Venkanagouda –vs- State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2001 Kar. 1126. ii) N. Ganesh and another-vs- State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2000 Kar.3982. iii) Patel Basawegowda and another –vs- Prescribed Officer, Singarajapura Mandal Panchayat & others reported in 1987(3) KLJ 229. iv) Ashok –vs- Tawanappa Siddappa Jakkannavara reported in ILR 1989 Kar. 123. 5. Per contra, Sri B.G. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent contends that 08 members of the 1st Respondent Committee who participated in the meeting held on 04.08.2009 are not made as parties to these proceedings and in their absence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 123. 5. Per contra, Sri B.G. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent contends that 08 members of the 1st Respondent Committee who participated in the meeting held on 04.08.2009 are not made as parties to these proceedings and in their absence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. During the pendency of these writ petitions, when the matter relating to the nomination of the 5th Respondent is seized by this Court, the Respondent/Government committed an illegality in passing the impugned order on 08.09.2009 cancelling the nomination of the 5th Respondent and as such, the same is illegal. It is contended that under Sec.10(V) of the Act, it is specifically mentioned that member of a Committee of Management of an Agricultural Co-operative Processing Society is eligible to be nominated. But Sec.11(V) of the Act, Specifies a member of the Agricultural Co-operative Processing Society is eligible to be nominated. Thus, there is distinction between Sec.10(V) and Sec.11(V) of the Act. Therefore, the nomination of the 5th Respondent who is not a member of the Committee of Management of the Processing Society is valid. It is contended that the Processing Society is having a valid license from the 1st Respondent Committee. Alternatively, it is contended that in the event of this Court holding that the nomination of the 5th Respondent as invalid, then the proceedings of the meeting held on 04.08.2009 shall be relegated to its position as equal vote in favour and against the motion of confidence and to follow the procedure specified under Section 49(4) of the Act. (Underline is mine) 6. Sri. Thimmegowda, learned counsel for the Market Committee and the learned Government Advocate supports the petitioners and justify the cancellation of nomination of 5th respondent. 7. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers. The following points will arise for my consideration in these writ petitions: i) Whether the writ petition in W.P.No.23859-23866/2009 is not maintainable for not making Eight members of the 1st Respondent Committee as parties to these writ petitions? ii) Whether the Processing Society had valid license as required under Sec.11(V) of the Act? iii) Whether the nomination of Respondent No.5 is void ab initio? iv) Whether the subsequent cancellation of nomination of 5th respondent is legal? v) Whether the no confidence motion passed in the meeting held on 04.08.2009 is materially altered by the participation of 5th Respondent? ii) Whether the Processing Society had valid license as required under Sec.11(V) of the Act? iii) Whether the nomination of Respondent No.5 is void ab initio? iv) Whether the subsequent cancellation of nomination of 5th respondent is legal? v) Whether the no confidence motion passed in the meeting held on 04.08.2009 is materially altered by the participation of 5th Respondent? vi) Whether the 1st petitioner is entitled to continue as President of the 1st Respondent in the event of holding that the nomination of 5th Respondent as void abinitio? REASONS On Point No.1 8. The main prayer in these writ petitions is the validity of nomination of the 5th respondent as Member of respondent no.1 - Committee. The other reliefs to quash resolution dated 4.8.2009 is only consequential relief. The contesting respondent in this case is the 5th respondent. The outcome of these writ petitions will depend on the validity of nomination of 5th respondent and he is a present in these proceedings. Therefore, the presence of other 8 members of the 1st respondent-Committee in these proceedings is not necessary. The presence of other 8 members of the 1st respondent-Committee in no way assist the Court in arriving at a just conclusion in the controversy involved in this case. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is maintainable. 9. It is necessary and useful to extract the relevant provisions in the Act to decide this point. Sec.11(V) of the Act reads as under: On Point No.2 “One member shall be a representative of Agricultural Co-operative Processing Societies carrying on business in notified agricultural produce, within the market area, who is not disqualified under Section 16, elected by the committee of management of such societies.” Sec-2-A of the Act defines, Agricultural Co-operative Processing Society means “an Agricultural Co-operative Processing Society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, for the purpose of Processing of Agricultural Produce in a market area. Sec.2(21) of the Act defines market functionary includes a processor. Further, the 1st proviso to Sec.8(b) specifies that no market functionary shall operate except in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rule, the Bye-Laws, Standing Orders of the Market Committee and the terms and conditions granted by the Market Committee. 10. Sec.2(21) of the Act defines market functionary includes a processor. Further, the 1st proviso to Sec.8(b) specifies that no market functionary shall operate except in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rule, the Bye-Laws, Standing Orders of the Market Committee and the terms and conditions granted by the Market Committee. 10. A combined reading of the above provisions of the Act makes it clear that the following requirements are to be fulfilled for nomination of a representative under the category specified in Sec.11(V) of the Act. i) The Society shall be a Processing Society. ii) The Processing Society shall be a Society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. iii) The Processing Society shall possess valid license for Processing the notified agricultural produce. iv) The Processing Society shall operate its business within the market area. 11. In the instant case, the 5th Respondent has produced Ex.R5, the Certificate of Registration issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the same is not disputed. Ex.R5 is the proof of the fact that the processing society is a registered cooperative society. Further it is not in dispute that the processing society is operating its business within the market area of first respondent-Committee. Thus condition No.(i),(ii) and (iv) are satisfied by the processing society. Now it is necessary to examine whether the processing society possess a valid licence for processing the notified agricultural produce. Exts.R7 to R10 are the receipts issued by the 1st Respondent Market Committee in favour of the Processing Society during the period from 2005 to 2008 specifying the payment of license fee and license renewal fee. A reading of these receipts Exs.R7 to R10 specifies that the Processing Society paid the fee for the purpose of obtaining license to carry on its business in purchase and export. These receipts Exs.R7 to R10 are not in respect of processing the notified agricultural produce by the Processing Society. Ex.R11 is the application in Form No.41 submitted by the Processing Society for the purpose of obtaining license. Column No.13 in Ex.R11 is meant for furnishing the details relating to the processing of agricultural produce. In this Column No.13 in Annexure-R11, it is left blank. Further, Annexure-G is dated 01.09.2009 wherein the license of the Processing Society came to be renewed and again Annexure-G specifies that the Processing Society has obtained license for the purpose of purchase and export. In this Column No.13 in Annexure-R11, it is left blank. Further, Annexure-G is dated 01.09.2009 wherein the license of the Processing Society came to be renewed and again Annexure-G specifies that the Processing Society has obtained license for the purpose of purchase and export. From these documents placed by respondent No.5, it is manifestly clear that Processing Society do not possess a valid license in the matter of processing the notified agricultural produce. Therefore, no representative from the Processing Society can be nominated by the Government under Sec.11(V) of the Act. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered in Negative. (Underline is mine) On Points No.3 and 4:- 12. A Division bench of this court in Venkanagouda Vs. State of Karnataka ILR 2001 Kar 1126 had the occasion to interpret Section 11 (i)(iv) & (v) of the Act. Para 15 of the judgment is relevant and the same reads as under: “15. In Section 11(iv) and (v) also we find the Legislature provides that one member each under these two clauses shall be a representative of the Co-operative Marketing Societies and of the Agricultural Co-operative Processing Societies. A person in a democratic process elected directly by a body or by members of electoral college as may be as representatives of that society. Here, under Section 11(iv) and (v), the representative of Society is to be elected not directly by members of the Co-operative Marketing Societies or Co-operative Processing Societies, but are to be elected indirectly i.e., to be elected by the members of the Managing Committee of such Societies, who in being elected to the Committee of Management of Societies, act as representative of members of such Societies. If any person other than from amongst the members of the Committee of Management of Societies referred to under Clause ‘iv’ and ‘v’ are elected by the members of Committee of Management to be the members of Agricultural Produce market Committee, they may not be considered to be the real representative of the aforesaid Co-operative Societies. As such it appears to be the legislative intent that one person each to be elected under clause ‘iv’ and ‘v’, indirectly by committee of management of such Societies should be from amongst the representatives of those Co-operative Societies. As such it appears to be the legislative intent that one person each to be elected under clause ‘iv’ and ‘v’, indirectly by committee of management of such Societies should be from amongst the representatives of those Co-operative Societies. This appears to be the intention of Legislature conveyed by use of expression “shall be a representative of Co-operative Marketing Societies/or under clause ’v’ of the Agricultural Cooperative Processing Societies and by use of expression “elected by Committee of Management of such Societies”. Rule making authority has also understood the legal position in this manner and enacted Rule 5C, according to which the Deputy Commissioner or the Authorized Officer shall maintain in his office a list of all the Members of the Managing Committees of Co-operative Marketing Societies and Agricultural Co-operative processing Societies. The Rule further provides for updating the said list from time to time. This Rule is meant to enable the Deputy Commissioner to verify whether the representative sent by the said Societies remained as a Member of the Managing Committee of such Society or not. On a reasonable interpretation, keeping in view the objective of the provision, we have to read the expression “from amongst them” by necessary implication in clauses (iv) and (v) of Section 11. This interpretation harmonises with and flows from a reading of Section 38(2) of the Act which clearly provides that a person who has been elected to the Market committee as a representative of the Co-operative Marketing Society or as a representative of the Co-operative Agricultural Processing Society shall cease to be the member of the Market Committee on his ceasing to be the member of the Market Committee of such Society. In view of the above, it naturally follows that a person who ceases to be member of the Managing Committee of the respective Co-operative Societies, and has been elected to the Agricultural Market Committee under Section 11 (iv) will definitely cease to be the member of the Agricultural Market Committee on his ceasing to be member of the Managing Committee of such Societies under Section 38 (2) of the Act. 13. In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Venkanagouda’s case it is necessary that representative from a processing co-operative society shall be a member of the Managing Committee of the Society. 13. In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Venkanagouda’s case it is necessary that representative from a processing co-operative society shall be a member of the Managing Committee of the Society. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that respondent no.5 was not the Managing Committee member of the processing society as on the date of his nomination to the first respondent-Committee on 3.8.2009. Firstly the processing society did not have a valid licence and secondly 5th respondent was not managing committee member of the processing society. Therefore, the nomination of 5th respondent is void ab initio. The subsequent cancellation of nomination of 5th respondent is in accordance with law and the same do not call for interference. There is no legal impediment for the Government to cancel the nomination of 5th respondent during the pendency of writ petition. Accordingly, these points are answered in affirmative. On Point No.5 14. This court in Patel Basavegowda Vs. Prescribed Officer Singarajapura Mandal Panchayat & others 1987 Kar.L.J. 229 held as under: “This brings us to the next question as to whether the participation of these two nominated members has materially affected the election of the Pradhan of the said Mandal Panchayat. It is not disputed that there are 29 elected members to the said Mandal Panchayat apart from respondents 4 and 5 who are the nominated members. So the total membership of the Mandal Panchayat is 31. From Annexure-A it is clear that 30 members attended the meeting of the Mandal Panchayat held on 24.4.1987 to elect the Pradhan; that petitioner no.2 and respondent no.3 contested the election of Pradhan and that each of them got votes. It also shows that after taking lots, respondent no.3 was declared elected as Pradhan. From Annexure-A it is clear that the two nominated members respondent 4 and 5 supported the motion proposing the name of respondent 3. Therefore, it is clear that participation of respondents 4 and 5 has materially affected the result of the election of Pradhan. Therefore, the election of the Pradhan is vitiated by the participation of respondents 4 and 5, who were not entitled to be nominated. In Ganesh and Another Vs. Therefore, it is clear that participation of respondents 4 and 5 has materially affected the result of the election of Pradhan. Therefore, the election of the Pradhan is vitiated by the participation of respondents 4 and 5, who were not entitled to be nominated. In Ganesh and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and others ILR 2000 Kar 3982 it is held that “with the participation of an unauthorized person in the election the same materially alter the result of election”. 15. Keeping the law laid down by this court in the decisions referred to above, it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the instant case. It is not in dispute that prior to the nomination of 5th respondent, 1st respondent- Committee consisted of 13 elected members and 3 nominated members and in all 16 members. On 3.8.2009, the Government nominated 5th respondent as Member of the 1st respondent-Committee. With the nomination of the 5th respondent, the strength of 1st respondent-Committee was increased to 17. In the meeting held on 4.8.2009, 8 members voted against and 9 members voted in favour of the motion of confidence by raising their hands. This 9 members voted in favour of motion includes the vote of 5th respondent. Admittedly, the 5th respondent voted in favour of the motion. The motion was carried by a majority of one vote. Therefore, the participation of 5th respondent in the meeting held on 4.8.2009 materially altered the decision on the no confidence motion. Accordingly, point no.4 is answered in affirmative. On Point No.6: 16. Learned senior counsel for respondent no.5 contends that in the event of excluding the vote of respondent no.5, then the resolution dated 4.8.2009 on the motion of no confidence will stand at a stage of equal votes on the motion of no confidence. In that event the procedure laid down under Section 49(4) of the Act is to be applied by giving an additional or casting vote to the presiding authority. This contention of learned senior counsel is unacceptable to me. The procedure specified under Section 49 is to transact the business of the Marketing Committee in its regular meetings. But Section 44 of the Act Specifies the procedure for conducting a specially conveyed meeting to consider the no confidence motion. This contention of learned senior counsel is unacceptable to me. The procedure specified under Section 49 is to transact the business of the Marketing Committee in its regular meetings. But Section 44 of the Act Specifies the procedure for conducting a specially conveyed meeting to consider the no confidence motion. Therefore, the procedure prescribed for conducting general meetings to transact the business of marking committee are entirely different from the procedure to be followed for conducting special meeting to consider the no confidence motion. Section 44 of the Act specifies that motion of no confidence shall be carried by majority of vote. In the meeting held on 4.8.2009, no confidence motion was not carried by a majority vote. Therefore, this point is answered in affirmative. For the reasons stated above, the following: ORDER i) Writ petitions No.23859-66/2009 are hereby allowed. ii) W.P.No.27562/2009 is hereby dismissed. iii) The impugned resolution dated 4.8.2009 as per Annexure-B is hereby quashed. iv) The first petitioner to continue as President of the first respondent-Committee as he was. v) Ordered accordingly.