ORDER : Sujatha, J. The petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 27.04.2017 issued by respondent No. 1 herein, whereby, the merger/amalgamation of APMC of Devadurga with APMC of Raichur is directed to be amalgamated. 2. The petitioner (in W.P. No. 202391/2017) is claiming to be an association of cotton merchants doing business at Devadurga Taluka coming under the jurisdiction of Taluka Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Devadurga. The petitioners are aggrieved by the notification issued by respondent No. 1 amalgamating the two Market Committees of Devadurga and Raichur. 3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly argued on four points. Firstly, the requirement of Section 144 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 ('the Act' for short) namely, 1) satisfaction of the State Government; 2) Consultation with the Market Committees concerned, are not properly complied with. Secondly, no notification under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act is issued for the merger of the Market Areas. Thirdly, the notification impugned is contrary to Section 9 of the Act. Fourthly, that the impugned notification is in contravention of proviso to Section 4 of the Act. According to the Learned Counsel, the number of Market Area should be proportionate to the number of Talukas in the District. In support of his contentions, the Learned Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. Parvathareddy v. State of Karnataka ILR 1995 Kar 1856. 2. Shri Shivram S/o Sonbaji Girhipunje and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others W.P. No. 4298 of 2008 Bombay H.C., Dated : 30.9.2009. 4. The Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State contended that notification impugned is in conformity with the Act and Rules. The objections were called for the proposal of amalgamation of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 committees. The amalgamation process of the two committees herein was initiated in view of providing more convenient trading facilities of agricultural activities to the farmers of the region of Devadurga Taluka. It is for the purpose of development and improvement of Devadurga Taluka, the said amalgamation of the committees was proposed and implemented after considering the objections of the traders. He further submitted that the requirement of Section 144 of the Act, i.e., satisfaction of the State Government and the consultation of the two committees have been complied with. It is for the purpose of development and improvement of Devadurga Taluka, the said amalgamation of the committees was proposed and implemented after considering the objections of the traders. He further submitted that the requirement of Section 144 of the Act, i.e., satisfaction of the State Government and the consultation of the two committees have been complied with. Amalgamation of committees is not an administrative act, the State Government is exercising the legislative power and not administrative power and therefore there is no obligation on the part of the State Government to hear the parties affected before issuing the notification. The Learned Counsel submitted that, arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the number of Market Areas should be equivalent to the number of Talukas is wholly misconceived. Proviso to Section 4 of the Act mandates that a Market Area shall not be less than a Taluka and more than a District. According to the Learned Counsel, no separate notifications under Sections 4 and 5 is required to be issued, when the notification is issued under Section 144 of the Act. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments: 1) Tungamma and others v. State of Karnataka and others ILR 2001 Kar 2785. 2) Sri T.C. Dasaraiah and others v. The State of Karnataka and others W.P. No. 3823 of 2007 and connected matters Dated 9.8.2007. 5. The Learned Counsel Sri Mallikaijun Basareddy, appearing for Market Committees filing the statement of objections objected the writ petition. It was submitted that the Market Committee of Devadurga and Raichur were amalgamated in terms of the Notification issued by the Government of Karnataka dated 25.10.2000. Again the two Market Committees were bifurcated as per the Notification dated 31.07.2012. Devadurga Committee was construed as backward noticing the expenditure and income report for the year 2006-07 till 2011-12, no amount was incurred towards developmental activities, which shows no development activities in the Market Yard. Hence, both the committees have passed resolution resolving to amalgamate with each other so the development activities will be taken. It was submitted that the impugned notification seeks to achieve the purpose of Section 144 of the Act. Hence, the question of issuing notifications as per Sections 4 and 5 does not arise. 6. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 7. It was submitted that the impugned notification seeks to achieve the purpose of Section 144 of the Act. Hence, the question of issuing notifications as per Sections 4 and 5 does not arise. 6. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 7. It is beneficial to refer to the relevant provisions of the Ad to analyse the issue on hand. Section 4 and the proviso thereof reads thus: "4. Declaration of market area and the regulation of marketing of specified agricultural produce therein. After the expiry of the period specified in the notification issued under Section 3, and after considering such objections and suggestions as may be received before such expiry, the State Government may, by another notification, declare the area specified in the notification issued under Section 3 or any portion thereof to be a market area and that the marketing of all or any of the kinds of agricultural produce specified in the notification issued under Section 3 shall be regulated under this Act in such market area. A notification under this section may also be published in Kannada in a newspaper circulating in such area : Provided that a market area shall not be less than a Taluk and more than a District:" The State Government is empowered to declare the Market Area by issuing notification under this Section. 8. Section 5 of the Act provides for Alteration of Market Area and of items of regulated agricultural produce which reads thus: "5. Alteration of Market Area and of items of regulated agricultural produce.- Subject to the procedure specified in Sections 3 and 4, the State Government may, at any time by notification, exclude from any Market Area, any area or include therein an additional area, or may declare that the regulation of the marketing of any agricultural produce in any Market Area shall cease, or that the marketing of any agricultural produce (either to not regulated) shall be regulated in such Market Area. " 9. Section 9 of the Act provides for Establishment of Market Committee and its incorporation, which contemplates that for even Market Area there shall be a Market Committee having jurisdiction over the entire Market Area. 10. Section 144 of the Act provides for Amalgamation of Market Committees, which reads thus: "144. " 9. Section 9 of the Act provides for Establishment of Market Committee and its incorporation, which contemplates that for even Market Area there shall be a Market Committee having jurisdiction over the entire Market Area. 10. Section 144 of the Act provides for Amalgamation of Market Committees, which reads thus: "144. Amalgamation of market committees.-Where the State Government is satisfied that for securing efficient regulation of marketing of any agricultural produce in any market area, it is necessary that two or more market committees therein should be amalgamated, then the State Government may after consulting the Market Committees concerned provide for the amalgamation of such Market Committees into a single market committee for the Market Area in respect of the agricultural produce specified in the notification, with such constitution, property, rights, interests and authorities and such liabilities, duties and obligations (including provision in respect of contracts, assets, employees, proceedings, and such incidental, consequential and supplementary matters as may be necessary to give effect to such amalgamation) as may be specified in the notification. " 11. A conjoint reading of these provisions makes it clear that for every Market Area, a Market Committee is mandatory. Market Area has to be notified in terms of Section 4 of the Act. For the amalgamation of Market Committees in terms of Section 144, the essential factors required are, (1) the State Government should be satisfied that for securing efficient regulation of marketing of any agricultural produce in any Market Area amalgamation of the Market Committees is necessary; (2) Consultation with the Market Committees concerned. As could be seen from the material available on record, these two conditions are satisfied. The next question would be whether the proviso to the Section 4 of the Act has been complied with? 12. It is on this point the Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued placing reliance on the Parvathareddy (supra), to contend that Market Area is sine quo non for a Taluka. This argument cannot be countenanced for the reason that proviso to Section 4 of the Act do not indicate the same. It is in the context of considering the amalgamation of two Market Committees of Saidapur and Yadagiri, it was observed by this Court in Parvathareddy (supra), a perusal of Section 4 per se shows that Marketing Area shall not be less than a Taluka and shall not be more than a District. It is in the context of considering the amalgamation of two Market Committees of Saidapur and Yadagiri, it was observed by this Court in Parvathareddy (supra), a perusal of Section 4 per se shows that Marketing Area shall not be less than a Taluka and shall not be more than a District. This proviso perse prescribes the minimum and maximum limits of Market Area. This shows that there can be more than one Market Area in a District and there may be more but there number, if more than one, must coincide with the number of Talukas in a District. It was further observed that there can also be a Market Area for entire District, instead of for being one Taluka but a Market Area cannot be less than the area of a Taluka and, there cannot be more than one Market Area in a Taluka. Further observed that it is open to the Government to amalgamate two or more committees existing in one Taluka. It cannot be said that there had been no power in the Government to amalgamate two marketing committees Saidapur and Yadgiri into one marketing committee for the entire area of Yadagiri Taluka. 13. The said Judgment depicts that there can be more than one Market Area in a District and there may be more, but their number, if more than one must coincide with the number of Talukas in a District. In my opinion the said observation made by the Court means, there is no prohibition for more than one Market Area in a District and if it is so, the number of Market Area must be with reference to the number of Talukas in the District, for example, if there are 4 Talukas in a District, 5 Market Areas in a District is not permissible. Likewise, 3 Market Areas in a District against 4 Talukas, is permissible. What the proviso to Section 4 contemplates is that a Market Area shall not be less than a Taluka and shall not be more than a District. If the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is accepted, there cannot be one Market Area for the entire District, which would defeat the intent of the Legislature. There may be different Talukas in a District, for all Talukas in a District, there is no inhibition for a single Market Area in the entire District. If the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is accepted, there cannot be one Market Area for the entire District, which would defeat the intent of the Legislature. There may be different Talukas in a District, for all Talukas in a District, there is no inhibition for a single Market Area in the entire District. The Learned Judge in the Judgment referred to supra categorically held that there may also be a Market Area for entire District, instead of for being one Taluka. If this factor is taken into consideration, the interpretation of the Judgment in Parvathareddy (supra), by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is misconceived. Considering this proposition laid down, theory of equivalent numbers of Market Area with the number of Taluka in a District cannot be countenanced. 14. In the case of Sri. Shivaram (supra), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench has held that every action of the State Government or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above Board, but it should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favoritism and nepotism. The decision should be made by the application of known principles and Rules applicable to the issue and such decision should be predictable and the citizen should know whether he is, but if the decision is taken without any principle or by ignoring the provisions of law applicable to the issue, it is unpredictable and such decision would not be sustainable in law. There is no cavil in this proposition. However, this Judgment would not come to the assistance of the petitioners to support their contention advanced in the present petitions. 15. While considering bifurcation of Davanagere APMC into two, one of Davanagere and other at Jagalur, this Court in Tungamma, (supra) held that the Act of bifurcation of Market Committees is not 'Administrative Act'. The State Government exercises legislative power and not administrative power while bifurcating and therefore there is no obligation on the part of the State Government to follow the principles of natural justice of hearing the parties to be affected or considering their objection before issuing the Notification. This proposition of law enunciated by Court is applicable even for the amalgamation of the Market Committees. This proposition of law enunciated by Court is applicable even for the amalgamation of the Market Committees. In the light of the said Judgment, it can be held that hearing of the parties affected is not mandatory while exercising the legislative power under Section 144 of the Act for amalgamation of the Market Committees. It is not in dispute that in fact objections were called before issuing the impugned Notification and the petitioners have filed objections, which has been considered by the Respondent No. 1 before issuance of the Notification impugned. What is required under Section 144 of the Act is the consultation with the Market Committees not with the individual traders or persons concerned. Admittedly, Market Committee of Devadurga has passed a resolution accepting the proposal for amalgamation of Devadurga Market Committee with Raichur Market Committee. Then the petitioners cannot raise a voice in as much as the legality of the Notification impugned on the ground of non-consideration of their objections. 16. This Court in the case of Sri. T.C. Dasaraiah(Supra) has held that it is not for the Court to decide as to whether the Market Area would be an economically viable or not. The Legislature has entrusted the duty of establishing a Market Area to the State Government, which is the competent authority and the State eminent is ordinarily expected to discharge its duties in accordance with law and in the interest of public. Thus it is clear that the State Government is the competent authority to exercise the power under Section 144 of the Act, being satisfied that for securing efficient regulations of marketing of any agricultural produce in any Market Area, it is necessary for amalgamation of Market Committees. It is not for the Courts to examine the viability of amalgamation of two Market Committees, if the State is satisfied with its economical viable proposition, unless it is demonstrated that no such satisfaction was complied with. Viewed from this angle, the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners' fails. No material is placed on record to disprove the satisfaction factor of the State Government in as much as financial viable proposition is concerned. Similarly, there is no dispute regarding the consultation of the two committees are concerned. 17. Section 5 of the Act contemplates about the alteration of Market Area, which is different from the amalgamation of Market Committees. No material is placed on record to disprove the satisfaction factor of the State Government in as much as financial viable proposition is concerned. Similarly, there is no dispute regarding the consultation of the two committees are concerned. 17. Section 5 of the Act contemplates about the alteration of Market Area, which is different from the amalgamation of Market Committees. Hence, issuance of Notification under Section 5 of the Act is not necessary. Similarly, Notification under Section 4 was originally issued declaring the Market Area of Devadurga and Raichur under Section 4 of the Act. If the amalgamation of the Market Committees is pursuant to the Notification under Section 144 of the Act, the extent of the Market Area gets enlarged, in view of the Notification and as such no further Notification under Section 4 of the Act is mandatorily required. 18. It is also pertinent to note that subsequent to the issuance of the Notification under Section 144, a Notification under Section 9 (2) of the Act is issued on 09.05.2017 declaring the name of the amalgamated Market Committees as Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Raichur. 19. The petitioner's apprehension that the business and agricultural producers would be put to difficulties and harassment is without any substance. It is always open to provide market yard and sub-market in the Devadurga Taluka, if the business activity therein calls for the same. 20. For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petitions are misconceived. The Notification impugned herein is justifiable and is in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Hence, Writ Petitions stand dismissed. Writ Petitions are Dismissed.