The nominated member had to be counted for calculating the two-thirds strength of the Committee members under Section 44 of the Act.

( 1 )

( 2 ) ). The petitioner, who was Chairman of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bagalkot District ('the Committee' for short) has prayed to quash the order in No. E:07:election:2000 dated 27-4-2000 of R-2, Director of Agriculture Marketing, Bangalore, passed removing him from the post of Chairman of the said Committee with immediate effect pursuant to the 'no-confidence Motion' passed by the Committee in its meeting held on 19-4-2000. Admitted Facts :

( 3 ) AS on 19-4-2000 the Committee, consisted of 18 members. The post of one of its member was lying vacant and out of its remaining 17 members one was an official member nominated to the Committee by R-2 under Section 11 (1) (viii) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 ('the Act' in short ). Petitioner was the Chairman of the Committee prior to 19-4-2000. In response to a valid no-confidence motion notice in Form-27 given against him by the prescribed number of members of the Committee as envisaged by Section 44 (1) of the Act, a meeting of the Committee was convened on 19-4-2000 to pass its resolution in that regard. The said meeting proceeding was commenced at 10. 30 a. m. and was concluded by 11. 00 a. m. on 19-4-2000 and 11 members of the Committee were present and participated in the meeting. They all unanimously supported the no-confidence motion against petitioner. Thereafter, at about 11. 15 a. m. , another member of the Committee, named Pandu Police, also came and was stated to have put his signature in the minute book supporting the said resolution of the Committee.

( 4 ) LATER, on the same day, R-3 the Secretary of the Committee, submitted his report in No. APMC (B)/186-88/2000-2001 vide Annexure-B to R-2 seeking his further needful action under Section 44 (2) of the Act. An objection was raised by the petitioner before R-2 against acceptance of the 'no-confidence motion' resolution against him. The ground of that objection was that the total number of the Committee members being 18, and only 11 of them having participated in the meeting and carried the motion, their number having fallen short of the requisite two-thirds of the total number of the members of the Committee, as required under Section 44 (2) of the Act, that resolution was an invalid resolution. That objection of petitioner was overruled by R-2 on the ground that the post of one member of the Committee having been left vacant, and another said official member being a nominated member, who was disqualified under Section 11 (1) (viii) of the Act to vote in respect of Committee's any resolution under Section 44, the net number of the Committee members which was required for the purpose of computation of required 2/3rd was 16, and, therefore, 11 members out of this 16 having participated and voted in support of no-confidence motion, the Committee's said resolution was a valid resolution within the meaning of Section 44 (1) and (2) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order, vide Annexure-D, was passed by R-2.

( 5 ) MR. Jadhav, learned Counsel for petitioner, seeking to rely on a decision of the Supreme Court in Raees Ahmad v. State of U. P. , 1999 (10) Supreme 178, assailed the validity of the impugned order of R-2 contending that his finding that the said nominated member cannot be counted for determination of 2/3rd strength of total number of Committee members is legally erroneous and not tenable. It was submitted that if said member is also taken into account, then the total number of the Committee members for the purpose comes to 17. In that event, the no-confidence motion moved and supported by only 11 members will not constitute 2/3rd of the total members of the Committee and thus it does not meet the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 44, as the signature of said 12th member Pandu Police having been obtained in the resolution subsequent to the meeting he has to be ignored.

( 6 ) MR. Nargund, learned Counsel for R-4, argued per con