JUDGMENT - V.P. TIPNIS, J.:---Rule. Shri Sonawane waives service on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and Shri Gangal, the learned Counsel waives service on behalf of respondent No. 5. By consent rule heard forthwith. 2.By this petition filed by Vave Potage Shenvai Vividh Vikas Karyakari Society Ltd., the notification dated 2-9-1998 issued by the State Government under section 14(3) proviso of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 extending the term of office of the Roha Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee till 27-9-1999 is impugned. 3.The ground on which Shri Gavnekar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the legality of the order is that provisions of the Act clearly state that the members of the Market Committee not being the Committee constituted for the first time shall hold office for a period of five years. The proviso states that where the general election of members of the Committee could not be held for reasons beyond the control of the Committee before expiry of the term of office of its members as aforesaid, the State Government may by order in Official Gazette extend from time to time the term of office of members of any such Committee, however, the period for which the term of office is so extended shall not exceed the period of one year in the aggregate. Shri Gavneker states that the reason given for the extention is "in public interest (Lokhitkar tha)". In the submission of Shri Gavenekar, this reason is totally irrelevant for the purposes of the proviso. 4.Shri Gangal appearing for respondent No. 5 vehemently urged that once the Government takes a decision for the purpose of proviso of section 14(3), it must be assumed that the Government was satisfied regarding the existence of the situation contemplated by the proviso. Shri Gangal also states that the public interest is not totally alien or without relevance. Shri Gangal also urged that we should call for the record to satisfy ourselves that the requirement of the proviso is in fact in existence. We are unable to accept any of the submissions of Shri Gangal. As stated earlier, section 14(3) of the Act contemplates a definite term of the five years for the members of the Committee. Shri Gangal also urged that we should call for the record to satisfy ourselves that the requirement of the proviso is in fact in existence. We are unable to accept any of the submissions of Shri Gangal. As stated earlier, section 14(3) of the Act contemplates a definite term of the five years for the members of the Committee. Proviso gives a power to the State Government to extend the term from time to time, that however, in such a manner as not to exceed the period of one year in the aggregate. That power, in our opinion, is clearly circumscribed by the earlier part of the proviso viz. the power can be used only where the general election of members of the Committee could not be held for the reasons beyond the control of the Committee before expiry of the term of the office of its members. In our opinion, that is the only reason for which term of the Committee can lawfully be extended under the provisions of section 14(3). The required condition not being mentioned in the order and not being available, it was impermissible for the State Government to extend the term in public interest which reason is not at all mentioned in the section. We may emphasise that looking to the provisions of section 14(3) and the proviso holding the elections at the proper time cannot be taken lightly and ignored and that is why the proviso makes it clear that only when the Committee members cannot be faulted with for not holding the elections, the State Government may extend the period. 5.It is also relevant to notice that the original term of this Committee of five years could be till 27-8-1998 and by the impugned notification it is extended to 27-9-1999, i.e. more than one year, clearly contrary to the limit of aggregate of one year. 6.For the aforesaid reasons the Notification dated 2-9-1998 extending the term of respondent No. 5 Roha Agricultural Produce Market Committee is clearly illegal and deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. At this juncture, Shri Gangal prays for stay of the order. We find the order so patently illegal that we reject the application for stay for some period. Certified copy expedited. Petition allowed. *****