P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Special Civil Application is for issuing a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus a writ on quo warranto or a writ in the nature of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ or direction restraining respondent No. 3 from acting 85 the Chairman of the 2nd respondent-Board and respondent Nos. 4 to 11 form acting as members of the Gujarat State Agricultural Marketing Boards who is the 2nd respondent herein with effect from 24/02/1989 There is a further prayer to declare the Gujarat agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Amending Act 1989 as unconstitutional. There is also a further prayer in the Special Civil Application for issue of a writ of mandamus for directing the 1st respondent to bold the election of 12 elected members under Sec. 34a sub-sec. (1) clauses (ii) and (iii) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1963 It is an admitted case that the first appointment of members contemplated under clauses (ii) and (iii) of Sec. 34a (1) of the Act was made on 25-2-1985. Section 34a proviso reads as follows:" 34 (1) xxx xxx xxx provides that when the Board is constituted for the first time the members under clauses (ii) and (iii) shall be persons nominated by the State Government and shall hold office for a period of two years from the date of their nomination such period being extensible by the State Government for a further period of two years so however that the total period shall not exceed four years in the aggregate". Section 34c of the said Act states:"34 (1) Save as otherwise provided in Sec. 34b every member of the Board whether elected or nominated shall bold office for a period upto the end of four years (A) in the case of an elected member from the date of publication of his name in the Official Gazette under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 34a; and (B) In the case of a nominated member from the date of his nomination;provided that the State Government may from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette extend the term of Office of such members for a further period not exceeding one year in the aggregate. (2) Every member of the Board shall be paid such allowances and fees as may be prescribed. (2) Every member of the Board shall be paid such allowances and fees as may be prescribed. (3) The allowances and fees to the members shall be paid from Development Fund". There is a transitory provision made under Gujarat Act 17 of 1985 and Sec. 10 of the said transitory provision reads as follows:"10 The Gujarat State Agricultural Marketing Board functioning immediately before the date on which the assent to this Act of the Governor is first published in the Official Gazette shall notwithstanding that its constitution has been rendered in consistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act continue to so function after the said date until 24/02/1989 This transitory provision came to be amended by the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Amending Act 1989"this Amending Act 2 of 1989 states:"1 This Act may be called the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Amending Act 19892 In the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Act 1985 in See. 10 for the words letters and figures until 24/02/1989 the words letters and figures until the 24/02/1950 shall be substituted". Thus the members who were nominated by the State Government for the first time got the period extended up till 24/02/1990 Such transitory provision is being questioned with prayers which we have extracted in paragraph supra. ( 2 ) MR. Patel the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner made three contentions for admission of this special civil application. The first contention is that the said transitory provision conflict with the proviso to Sec. 34a of the main Act. This he elaborates by stating that the proviso to the main Act specifically states that the first members nominated by the State Government can have 8 total period of four years and the paid total period shall not exceed four years in the aggregate. By the transitory provision that period was being extended by one more year. According to Mr. Patel such transitory provision is bad and illegal and should not have boon passed by-the Legislature since it conflicts with the main provision is Sec. 34a proviso. ( 3 ) THE next contention made by Mr. Patel is that there is no rationale in extending the period by one more year. According to Mr. Patel such transitory provision is bad and illegal and should not have boon passed by-the Legislature since it conflicts with the main provision is Sec. 34a proviso. ( 3 ) THE next contention made by Mr. Patel is that there is no rationale in extending the period by one more year. All these years the Government has kept quiet without framing any rules for having the election which they ought to have framed under Sec. 59 of the Act and as such the democratic process is being scuttled by extending the time. Such extension of time offends Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) THE third contention raised by Mr. Patel is that it is an arbitrary exercise of power by the State Government and it smacks with mala fides since the State Government wants to continue the Board members who are their supporters. ( 5 ) WE have gone through all these averments made by Mr. Patel. The transitory provision is made by the Legislature by passing necessary Act which we have extracted in paragraph supra. As to why the period was extended by such a transitory provision has been amply made out by the Statement of Objects and Reasons dated 7/02/1989 and the game tends as follows:"statement OP OBJECTS AND REASONS the existing Gujarat State Agricultural Marketing Board was constituted by Government Notification Co-operation Department No. H-30-85-APM-1185-314-G dated the 25/02/1985 issued under Sec. 34 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1963 as amended by the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Ordinance 1985 (Guj. Ord. 7 of 1985 ). As the said ordinance could not be replaced by an Act of the State Legislature before its expiry another Ordinance containing provisions identical with the previous Ordinance was promulgated as Gujarat Ord. 10 of 1985. The latter Ordinance was replaced by the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as (the Amending Act ). But as the provisions relating that the constituition of the existing Board as inserted in the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1903 by the Amending Act were different from those inserted by Guj. Ord. 10 of 1985. The latter Ordinance was replaced by the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as (the Amending Act ). But as the provisions relating that the constituition of the existing Board as inserted in the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1903 by the Amending Act were different from those inserted by Guj. Ord. 7 of 1985 Sec. 10 of the Amending Act continued the existing Board until the 24/02/1989 As the constitution of the new Board an accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce market Act 1963 as inserted by the Amending Act may taken some time it is considered necessary to continue the existing Board till the 24/02/1990 during which time a Dew Board could be duly constituted 60 ad to avoid any hiatus between the expiry of the term of the existing Board and the constitution of the new Board. This Bill works to amend the Amending Act to achieve the aforesaid object". From this Statement of Objects and Reasons it in very clear that the State Government in order to see that there is no vacuum in the functioning of the Committee and also genuinely taking effort for framing the Rules for the election came forward with such a transitory provision. It is stated in the Statements of Objects and reasons that as the constitution of the new Board in accordance with the provision of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1963 as inserted be the Amending Act may take some the it is considered necessary to continue the Board till 24/02/1990 during which time a now Board could be duly constituted so as to avoid any hiatus between the expiry of the term of the existing Board and the constitution of the new Board. When such a genuine reason his been even for the purpose of extending the period of the nominated members we do not find any infirmity in such instruction and there is enough rationale in making the transitory provision. ( 6 ) AS correctly contended by Mr. Hava the proviso to Sec. 34a definitely states that the State Government can extend the period for a form of two years but however the total period shall sot exceed four years in the aggregate. This is a bar on the State Government in order to son that the terms is not extended without recourse to the election. Hava the proviso to Sec. 34a definitely states that the State Government can extend the period for a form of two years but however the total period shall sot exceed four years in the aggregate. This is a bar on the State Government in order to son that the terms is not extended without recourse to the election. As far as the present case is concerned the term has been extended be the Act of the Legislature. Though Mr. Patel feebly contends with regard to the legislative competency he to not able to make any headway as to how the State Legislature has no competence to come forward with this transitory provision. The Act is made by the Legislature and in our view that will not cost into conflict with the proviso to Sec. 34 inasmuch as Sec. 34a proviso restricts the power of the State Government exercising its executive power. As regards the question of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power levelled by Mr. Patel against the respondents the transitory provision which we are able to see is a provision enacted as a legislative piece of enactment by the State Assembly and as such there is no question of arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power. Hence the question of arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power) on the facts and circumstances will not prise in the present case. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING all these aspects of the case we do not think that there is any conflict as suggested by the petitioner herein between the main Sec. 34a and the proviso therein and the transitory provision now enacted and which is being impugned in this Special Civil Application. It is but fair that the Government acts quickly in framing rules under Sec. 59 of the Act so than the democratically elected Board function in its true spirit instead of making the term of nominated members extended for a further period. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING all these facts of the case we do not think that there is any merits in any of the contentions raised in this Special Civil Application ant accordingly this Special Civil Application is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Ad-interim relief is vacated. ( 9 ) MR. Patel wants this Court to continue the ad-interim relief granted already in order to take the matter no the higher forum. Notice is discharged. Ad-interim relief is vacated. ( 9 ) MR. Patel wants this Court to continue the ad-interim relief granted already in order to take the matter no the higher forum. The nominated members are functioning as on date. As correctly put forth by Mr. Zaveri the learned Counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 4 to 11 the Board his to transact business regarding the budget and also chalk out the day-to-day administration. There will not be any harm in allowing the members who are there in the Board to function without any interruption. In view of this fact we do not think that the prayer made by Mr. Patel can be granted. Hava this prayer is rejected. Rule discharged. .