( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi [tritiya sanshodhan Adhyadesh, 1977 (M. P. Ordinance Mo. 9 of 1977) herein-after called the ordinance] has been challenged. This Bench was, therefore, constituted under Article 228-A of the Constitution.

( 2. ) BY this Ordinance, section 11 of the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi adhiniyam, 1972, (hereinafter called the act) has been amended. The only ground of challenge is that whereas the Act was enacted after obtaining the assent of the President, the Ordinance has been promulgated without the assent of the President.

( 3. ) THE Act provides inter alia for establishment of markets and Constitution of market committees. The petitioners case is that Mandi Committees throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh were established and incorporated under this Act. The Mandi Committee, Jora (District Morena) (Krishi Upaj mandi Committee, Jora) is one of such committees. In the month of December 1975, under the provisions of the Act election to the Mandi Committee was held on January 18, 1976. The petitioner was elected Chairman. The tenure of office is five years. However, on September 19, 1977, the Government of Madhya Pradesh promulgated the Ordinance which, inter alia, provides that the members of every market committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Act, during the period of operation of proclamation of emergency made by the President on June 25, 1975, under Clause (1)of Article 352 of the Constitution shall cease to hold office with effect from september 19, 1977, and every such market committee shall on that date stand dissolved.

( 4. ) CONSEQUENT upon the promulgation of the Ordinance the Deputy director Agriculture, Morena, has been appointed as Officer in Charge of the aforesaid Jora Mandi Committee. The State Government has authorised the collector to take all necessary actions and decisions for the purpose of taking over charge of the aforesaid Mandi Committee.

( 5. ) UNDER Article 213 of the Constitution the Governor is empowered to promulgate an Ordinance when the State Legislature is not in Session. However, certain conditions are imposed in the Proviso to Article 213 (1 ). Shri Anand Bihari Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Ordinance is constitutionally invalid inasmuch as the requirement of proviso

(2) was not fulfilled. That Proviso enacts that the Governor shall not, without the instructions from the President promulgate any such Ordinance if an Act of the Legislature of the State containing the same provision would have to be reserved for the consideration of the President and such assent has been received.

( 6. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner confines his attack solely to the abrogation of his membership and the resolution of the Committee in pursuance of the Ordinance. Further, it must be mentioned that the only ground of attack is that if that provision had been made in an Act of the legislature the provision would have been constitutionally invalid for want of assent of the President. The question for our enquiry is, therefore, restricted to this whether an Act of the Legislature which would abrogate membership and dissolve the Mandi Committee constituted under section 11 of the Act would require the assent of the President. Shri Mishras argument is that since the Act was enacted after obtaining the assent of the President no amendment can be made in the Act either by an Ordinance or an Act without the instructions or assent respectively. It is further argued that the object of the act is to provide for better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural products and the establishment and proper administration of markets of agricultural products in the State of Madhya Pradesh and since a Mandi Committee deals with buying and selling, the subject matter of the Act falls within Entry 33 of Schedule 3 of the Constituti