( 1. ) THE petitioners, who are agriculturists residing in the market area of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pandhurna, have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the election of members to the Krishi Upaj Mandi samiti, Pandhurna.

( 2. ) IT appears that in all 11 members have to be elected to the Krishi Upaj Mandi samiti, out of them nine are to be from the constituency of agriculturists, including two reserved seats one for scheduled caste and another for scheduled tribe candidates, and two from the constituency of traders. The election programme was announced, election officer was appointed on 20-9-1985, the constituencies were to be finalised on 27-9-1985, a preliminary voters list was to be published on 30-9-1985, objections were to be received on 1-10-1985 which were to be considered on 2-10-1985 the final voters list was to be published on 4-10-1985, nomination papers were to be accepted oh 12-10-1985, scrutiny of the nomination papers was to be done on 14-10-1985, acceptance or rejection of nomination paper was to be done on 16-10-1985, the last date of withdrawal of nomination paper was to be on 20-10-1985, the election was to be held on 28-10-85 and the result was to be declared on 29-10-1985.

( 3. ) THE grounds of challenge are : (i) that the voters list was not properly prepared, inasmuch as, it included names of co-opted panchas; under section 11 (1) (A) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, members who represent agriculturists are to be elected by Panchas of the Gram Panchayat and the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the Agriculture Service Co-operative Societies within the constituencies, but by M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Tritiya Sanshodhan) Adhyadesh, 1985, section 11 (1) (A)has been amended and now the members who represent agriculturists are to be elected by the elected Panchas of the Gram Panchayat and elected Chairman and vice-Chairman of the Agriculture Service Co-operative Societies and as such the co-opted panchas could not have been included in the voters list; (ii) Originally as per the election programme, the date for withdrawal of nomination paper was 20-10-1985 but subsequently the programme has been amended and the date has been changed to 17-10-1985, as such many of the candidates could not withdraw their nomination papers in time because of the change in the programme; and (iii) the nomination papers of petitioners 1 to 3 were wrongly rejected on the ground that in column No. 3 relating to fathers name, grandfathers name was also given and the nomination paper of petitioner No. 5 has been rejected on the ground that his brother is running a flour mill and, therefore, he could not be an agriculturist and as such section 11 (1) (A) of the adhiniyam is unreasonable and ultra vires, as it does not include any person in the category of agriculturists if some of his relations are traders. The intervenors have added additional ground by challenging the vires of section 11 of the Adhiniyam as unconstitutional, since it provides only two reserved seats, one for scheduled caste and another for scheduled tribe, without fixing the number in proportion to their population in the Krishi Upaj Mandi and as such it violates Articles 330 and 332 Of the Constitution.

( 4. ) FIRST of all it is proper to consider the validity of section 11a of the Adhiniyam in the light of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution. This section provides that in case the market committee having eight or less than eight members of agriculturists, then only one seat has to be reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates and in case the market committee having more than eight representatives of agriculturists, one seat has to be reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate and another for Scheduled Tribe candidate has to be reserved. It is, therefore, evident that under this section the number of seats for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates is not fixed in proportion to their populat