JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. Rule. Ms. Sangeeta Vishen learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the State Authorities. 2. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today. 3. The petitioners by this petition has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the State Government in purported exercise of the power under Section 11 (5)(A)(1) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market committee Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), whereby the administrator has been appointed and the elected body is ousted from the power. 4. Heard Mr. Vaghela learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Trivedi learned AG with Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, AGP for the State Authorities. 5. This Court on 19.12.2008 had passed the following order: "1. Upon hearing Mr. Vaghela for the petitioners and Mr. Pandya, learned AGP upon the advance copy, the matter was kept in the second sitting so as to enable Mr. Pandya to get instructions from the officer of the Government. However, Mr. Pandya states under the instruction that time may be granted for engaging the Advocate General or Addl. Advocate General and the Government may file reply. 2. Prima facie it appears that when the apprehension was voiced before the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : M.S. Shah & H.N. Devani, J.J.) in the proceedings of Misc. Civil Application No.2953/08, following order was passed by the Division Bench on 10.12.2008, in which the statement was recorded of the learned Advocate General for the State Government as under: "Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General states that since the election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Amreli is already declared, there is no question of appointment of an administrator on the ground that the elections are not being held after the expiry of the term on 12th December, 2008. The learned Advocate General, however, states that the competent authority may consider the exercise of such power on any other ground, if available under the law. In view of the above statement, the application stands disposed of." 3. In spite of the above declaration, substantially on the same ground, by backing out from the declaration, the order has been passed in appointing the administrator, that too in the midst of the election process of the Market Committee. 4. In view of the above statement, the application stands disposed of." 3. In spite of the above declaration, substantially on the same ground, by backing out from the declaration, the order has been passed in appointing the administrator, that too in the midst of the election process of the Market Committee. 4. As per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in 1992 (1) GLR 503 in the case of Abdulgani Abdulbhai Kureshi & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., if there is power under the statute for extension of the term and if the term of the elected has expired, it would be required for the Government also to consider the matter for extension of the term and it is only thereafter, if there is no discretion to be exercised for extension, the Administrator can be appointed. In any case, such power is to be exercised for bona fide purpose. 5. If the aforesaid principles are considered keeping in view the statutory provisions of Section 11(4) examined in light of the provisions of Section 11 (4) (AA) there are enabling power with the State Government for extension of the period not exceeding one year coupled with the circumstance of making declaration before the Division Bench of this Court by the person not less than the Advocate General of the State would prima facie show the exercise of the power ex facie illegal for appointment of the Administrator. 6. The aforesaid is in addition to the circumstance that the proceedings of supersession are yet to be examined and finalised by the State Government under Section 46 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act. 7. Hence, Notice returnable on 29.12.2008. By ad interim order, the operation and the implementation of the order shall remained stayed to the extent that the Administrator shall only look after the day to day affairs of the Market Committee and shall not take any policy decision including for cancellation of license or otherwise and also withdrawal of the proceedings as instructed in Special Civil Application No. 14031/08 or similar such matters, if any. 8. The State Government shall also report to this Court as to why further action should not be ordered against the concerned officer/authority of the State Government for defying the declaration made in the proceedings of Misc. Civil Application No.2953/08 before this Court. D.S. permitted." 6. 8. The State Government shall also report to this Court as to why further action should not be ordered against the concerned officer/authority of the State Government for defying the declaration made in the proceedings of Misc. Civil Application No.2953/08 before this Court. D.S. permitted." 6. It prima facie appears that even if the powers are read with the State Government for appointment of the administrator in the given case, where the statutory term of the elected body is over, in view of the decision of this Court in case of Abdulgani Abdulbhai Kureshi & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported at 1992 (1) GLR 503 read with the another decision of this Court (Coram: M.S. Shah, J.) in case of Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. State of Gujarat reported at 1998 (0) GLHEL 200180, it would be required for the State Government to consider the question of extension of the term of existing body and it is only thereafter, the State Government may take decision to appoint an administrator, if the term of the outgoing body is not to be extended for valid reasons. 7. It further appears that such powers are to be strictly observed, more particularly when the election programme is already declared and the election process is going on. Normally, it would be expected from the State Government to maintain the sanctity of the election, so as to continue the free and fair atmosphere for all voters at the election. It can hardly be disputed that any such action for ousting the body, who is in power until the election is completed, in the midst of the election, may result into disturbing free and fair atmosphere amongst the minds of the voters. However, thereby it cannot be said that even if there is emergent and extra ordinary circumstance, which if not taken care of by the State Government, by immediate action, outgoing body must be allowed to continue in power in the manner they like, which may also result into seriously causing loss to the property, or the revenue of the committee and there could be such extra ordinary circumstances, which may arise. As such the Government with the proper implementation of the provisions of the Act and more particularly during the election either itself or through Director could issue instructions in general that once the election programme is published and the first step towards preparation of the voters list has started, no policy decision resulting into transfer of the property or major utilisation of the revenue of the committee can be taken, save and except routine work and expenses, unless it is so expressly permitted by the election authority, or the authority as may be specified by the State Government or the Director as the case may be. 8. Mr. Trivedi learned AG did submit that on account of complaint received by the Director of Agricultural Marketing Committee from four members of the Market Committee dated 12.9.2008 regarding mismanagement, the Government had to take action and at the first instance, it had ordered for re-audit and thereafter it had also ordered to hold the inquiry under Section 44 of the Act. The same had given cause to the Government to exercise the power for appointment of the administrator. 9. I am afraid such could be said as valid circumstance for exercise of the power by the State Government. There were two peculiar circumstances in the present case, one is that the re-audit, which was ordered, is stayed by this Court, therefore, no attempt could be made by the State Government, to nullify the effect of the order of this Court. Second is that the inquiry was already ordered under Section 44 of the Act, and the show-cause notice was issued and the matter was yet to be concluded. Both were already there at the time, when the statement was made before the Division Bench of this Court on 10.12.2008, referred to in the earlier order reproduced herein above. Had there been any extra circumstances, which could not wait until the conclusion of the hearing, the matter might stand on different footing, but the original file also does not disclose any circumstances beyond the same. 10. I would have considered the matter further, however, it appears that in the present case there were no extra ordinary circumstances, which could have required appointment of the administrator. 10. I would have considered the matter further, however, it appears that in the present case there were no extra ordinary circumstances, which could have required appointment of the administrator. But the facts remain that pending the petition and even prior to the filing of the petition, the administrator has already taken over the charge and this Court by interim order has prohibited the administrator to take any policy decision. 11. Now the election is kept on 28.1.2009 and counting is on 29.1.2009. The matter could have been considered for passing further orders, but the learned Advocate General declared on behalf of the State Government that if the committee is constituted by this Court, Government has no objection, until the newly elected body takes over the office. 12. Hence, it appears that if the committee is constituted, comprising of the (1) Chairman of the Market Committee (2) The District Registrar and (3) The Secretary of the Market Committee, to look after day to day affairs of the market committee, until the newly elected body takes over, the same would meet with the ends of Justice. 13. Hence, impugned order passed by the State Government shall stand quashed and set aside with the direction that until the election is held and the newly elected body takes over, the affairs of the market committee shall be looked after committee comprising of the (1) The Chairman of the Market Committee (outgoing) (2) The District Registrar, ex-officio and (3) The Secretary of the Market Committee. The administrator so appointed, shall entrust charge to the said committee. The committee shall not take any policy decision, unless it is so expressly permitted by the Director of the Agricultural Marketing Committee. 14. The petition is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid direction. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to cost. Petition partly allowed.