JUDGMENT D.B. Bhosale, J. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard with consent of learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Advocates on record for the respondents waive notice on their behalf. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India is directed against the notification dated 17-1-2009 issued by respondent No.2-District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Buldhana, (For short "the DDR"), in exercise of the powers under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short "the Act"), whereby he has provided for amalgamation of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Motala (for short "AMPC, Motala") into the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Malkapur (for short "APMC, Malkapur"). 3. Petitioner No.2-APMC, Malkapur and respondent No.4-APMC, Motala are constituted under the provisions of the Act. Initially APMC, Malkapur was the only Market Committee in existence, which in 1986 was bifurcated into APMC, Malkapur and APMC, Motala. The market area of APMC, Malkapur extends to Tahsil-Malkapur, whereas the market area of APMC Motala extends to Tahsil-Motala. The Managing Committees of both the Market Committees had passed resolutions dated 19-8-2005 and 10-10-2005 for amalgamation as provided for under Section 44 of the Act. Though such resolutions were passed, the APMC, Motala on 30-12-2005 withdrew their resolution dated 19-8-2005. 4. The elections of petitioner No.2-APMC, Malkapur were held in March 2008 and in their first meeting held on 19-4-2008 petitioner No.1 was elected as its Chairman. Since the process of amalgamation had commenced before the elections, it appears that on 04-7-2008 they also passed a resolution withdrawing their earlier resolution dated 10-10-2005. After the second resolution (dated 27-9-2008) was passed by APMC, Malkapur, they informed the same to the DDR and requested him not to amalgamate the APMC, Motala with them. 5. Before the second resolution dated 04-7-2008 was passed by the APMC, Malkapur, on 13-11-2007 the DDR had already forwarded a proposal for amalgamation to the State Marketing Board for consultation as envisaged by sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. The State Marketing Board, accordingly, on 4-12-2007 passed a resolution recommending amalgamation and informed the same to the DDR. Before the second resolution dated 04-7-2008 was passed by the APMC, Malkapur, on 13-11-2007 the DDR had already forwarded a proposal for amalgamation to the State Marketing Board for consultation as envisaged by sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. The State Marketing Board, accordingly, on 4-12-2007 passed a resolution recommending amalgamation and informed the same to the DDR. Thereafter, till September, 2008 the DDR did not pass any order, and as a result thereof a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3994/2008 was filed by Balkrishna Shankar Nafde and four others, seeking direction to the DDR to consider and decide the proposal for amalgamation pending before him within time frame. The writ petition was heard and disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18-9-2008. It would be advantageous to reproduce the said order for better appreciation of the challenge in the present writ petition. The order dated 18th September, 2008 reads thus :- "Heard Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5, and Shri Patil, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3." "In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioners is regarding inaction on the part of the respondent No.5-District Deputy Registrar in taking a decision in respect of proposal submitted by the Agricultural Produce Market Committees for amalgamation in view of Section 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act. It is submitted that proposal is about amalgamation of A.P.M.C., Motala with A.P.M.C., Malkapur." "In the circumstances, we dispose of the petition with direction to respondent No.5 to take a decision in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard, if not taken earlier, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar, be given to the learned Government Pleader." (emphasis supplied) 6. Though, in Writ Petition No. 3994/2008, APMC, Malkapur, so also APMC, Motala were parties, it appears that they were not served and the order was passed ex parte. In view thereof, the petitioners filed Misc. Copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar, be given to the learned Government Pleader." (emphasis supplied) 6. Though, in Writ Petition No. 3994/2008, APMC, Malkapur, so also APMC, Motala were parties, it appears that they were not served and the order was passed ex parte. In view thereof, the petitioners filed Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 1204/2008 in Writ Petition No. 3994/2008 (D), seeking review of the order dated 18-9-2008 contending that in view of the resolution dated 04-7-2008 passed by APMC, Malkapur, whereby they withdrew their earlier resolution dated 10-10-2005 for amalgamation, there was no proposal pending before the DDR, and therefore, there was no reason to issue such directions vide order dated 18-9-2008. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the review application vide order dated 14-10-2008 and while doing so in concluding paragraphs observed thus : "In the instant case, the concerned A.P.M.C. has forwarded proposal dt. 10-10-2005 for amalgamation which was at a latter point of time withdrawn on 9-1-2006 and therefore, it is apparent that, on the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. on 18-9-2008, there was no proposal from the concerned A.P.M.C. forwarded to respondent no.5 and in absence thereof, the question of issuing direction to respondent No.5 for deciding the same does not arise. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dt. 18-9-2008 is hereby recalled. However, it is open for the State Government/ Competent Authority in whom powers are delegated by the State Government under the provisions of Section 44 of the Act, to take appropriate steps, if necessary and if the State is satisfied that amalgamation of two A.P.M.Cs. is necessary, procedure in accordance with provisions of Section 44 of the Act needs to be followed. It is further made clear that re-calling of the impugned Order shall not come in the way of the State Government or the Competent Authority if it decides to amalgamate two A.P.M.Cs. as per the provisions of Section 44 of the Act." The date 9-1-2006 mentioned in the order is admittedly a typographical error and the correct date of withdrawal of the earlier resolution (dated 10-10-2005) is 04-7-2008. 7. as per the provisions of Section 44 of the Act." The date 9-1-2006 mentioned in the order is admittedly a typographical error and the correct date of withdrawal of the earlier resolution (dated 10-10-2005) is 04-7-2008. 7. After the order dated 14-10-2008 was passed by this Court, on 10-12-2008, since the term of the then Managing Committee of APMC, Motala expired, an administrator came to be appointed, who in view of their (APMC, Motala) precarious financial condition, on 22-12-2008 passed a resolution for its amalgamation with APMC, Malkapur. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation on 26-12-2008, in response to the question asked by five M.L.As. including the local M.L.A. Shri Chainsukh Sancheti, made a statement on the floor of legislative assembly that necessary directions will be issued to the DDR to pass order of amalgamation of APMC, Motala with APMC, Malkapur. In view thereof Shri Sancheti addressed a letter to the concerned Minister asking him to issue necessary directions to the DDR for implementing the assurance given on the floor of assembly. On that letter, an endorsement, addressed to the DDR, was made on 27-12-2008, asking him to comply with the reply given by the Minister. The letter of Shri Sancheti with the endorsement was forwarded to the DDR, which was received by his office on 30-12-2008. The DDR issued the order/notification dated 17-1-2009, in exercise of the powers under Section 44 of the Act, amalgamating APMC, Motala with APMC, Malkapur. This order of DDR is impugned in the instant petition. 8. The order of DDR dated 17-1-2009 was also challenged by petitioner No.1 before the Hon'ble Minister of State for Cooperation, Marketing, Textile and D.E. Addiction Activities, Government of Maharashtra in a revision being Revision No. 5/2009. The Hon'ble Minister vide order dated 7-5-2009 allowed the revision application and set aside the impugned notification dated 17-1-2009 issued by the DDR. This order of the Minister was challenged in a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 2612/2009, by the very same petitioners who had filed Writ Petition No. 3994/2008 before this Court, mainly on the ground that the order of the Minister was without jurisdiction. This order of the Minister was challenged in a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 2612/2009, by the very same petitioners who had filed Writ Petition No. 3994/2008 before this Court, mainly on the ground that the order of the Minister was without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge vide Judgment and order dated 04-1-2010 allowed the writ petition holding that the Minister could not have exercised revisional or supervisory jurisdiction over the order under Section 44(1) of the Act passed by the DDR and proceeded to set aside the order passed by the Minister dated 07-5-2009. The petitioners challenged the order dated 04-1-2010 passed in the said writ petition (2612/2009) in an appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 58/2010. In the letters patent appeal notice was issued for final disposal and while doing so it was observed that the letters patent appeal and the instant Writ Petition No. 365/2010 will be heard together. In view thereof, the letters patent appeal is also placed along with the writ petition for final disposal before us. 9. Learned Counsel for the parties fairly submitted that if challenge to the notification dated 17-1-2009 issued by the DDR under Section 44(1) of the Act is considered on merits, then we need not deal with the issues raised in the letters patent appeal. In short, there was a clear understanding that if the writ petition is heard and disposed of on merits, the letters patent appeal need not be heard and be disposed of as infructuous. 10. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in the writ petition were centered around Section 44 of the Act. Under this provision power to amalgamate two or more Market Committees is conferred on the State Government. In the present case, sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads thus:- "44. Amalgamation or division of Market Committees. Under this provision power to amalgamate two or more Market Committees is conferred on the State Government. In the present case, sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act is relevant. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 reads thus:- "44. Amalgamation or division of Market Committees. (1) Where the State Government is satisfied that for securing efficient regulation of marketing of any agricultural produce in any market area (and for ensuring the economic viability of the Market Committee), it is necessary that two or more Market Committees therein should be amalgamated or any Market Committee therein should be divided into two or more Market Committees, then the State Government may, after consulting the Market Committees or Committee, as the case may be, (and the (State Marketing Board)) by notification in the Official Gazette, provide for the amalgamation or division of such Market Committees into a single Market Committee or into two or more Market Committees, for the market area in respect of the agricultural produce specified in the notifications with such constitution, property, rights, interests and authorities and such liabilities, duties and obligations (including provision in respect of contracts, assets, employees, proceedings, and such incidental, consequential and supplementary matters as may be necessary to give effect to such amalgamation or as the case may be, the division) as may be specified in the notification." (emphasis supplied) 11. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act, thus, provides for division and amalgamation of Market Committee or Committees. It empowers the State Government to amalgamate or divide the Market Committees only if it is satisfied that such division or amalgamation is necessary, (a) for securing efficient regulation of marketing of any agricultural produce in any market area, and (b) for ensuring the economic viability of the Market Committee. Herein after these two conditions, for short, will be referred to as "efficient marketing and economic viability." Sub-section (1) further provides that even if the State Government is satisfied that the division or amalgamation is necessary, it can proceed ahead to issue a notification providing for the amalgamation or division only after consulting the concerned Market Committees or Committee, as the case may be, and the State Marketing Board. In other words, unless the Market Committees or Committee, as the case may be, and the State Marketing Board are consulted and their opinion is taken into consideration the State Government cannot issue order/notification providing for amalgamation or division of Market Committees/s. In short, the conditions stipulated in sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act, which are mandatory in nature, are complied with, a notification contemplated by this provision cannot be issued. 12. Section 58 of the Act empowers the State Government, by issuing notification in the Official Gazette, to delegate all or any of the powers under the Act to the Director or any other Officer or person, specified in the notification. Admittedly, the State Government has issued a notification in the Official Gazette delegating its powers under Section 44 of the Act to the DDR. The DDR in the present case has, thus, issued the impugned notification under sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the entire record placed before us. We have also seen the original files produced by learned Additional Government Pleader for our perusal. 14. Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that after the order dated 18-9-2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 3994/2008 was recalled vide order dated 14-10-2008 passed in Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 1204/2008, there was no proposal from the APMC, Malkapur pending before the DDR. He submitted that by resolution dated 04-7-2008, the APMC, Malkapur withdrew their earlier resolution dated 10-10-2005 by which they sought amalgamation of APMC, Motala with them. He, therefore, submitted that after the order was passed on the review application dated 14-10-2008, the DDR ought to have initiated fresh proceedings and followed the entire procedure afresh as envisaged by sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. He submitted that after the order was passed on the review application, the act of continuation of amalgamation process on the basis of the proposals/resolutions passed by the APMCs on the basis of the recommendation made by the State Marketing Board vide their resolution dated 04-12-2007 was wrong and illegal. After inviting our attention to the proceedings sheet maintained by the DDR, he submitted that in view of the resolution dated 04-7-2008 passed by APMC, Malkapur, the file was closed and, therefore, he ought to have started fresh proceedings. After inviting our attention to the proceedings sheet maintained by the DDR, he submitted that in view of the resolution dated 04-7-2008 passed by APMC, Malkapur, the file was closed and, therefore, he ought to have started fresh proceedings. 15. Per contra, Shri Gordey, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted that though the amalgamation proceedings were initiated in view of the resolutions passed by the Market Committees, after withdrawal of the proposal/resolution by APMC, Motala, the DDR, on the basis of his satisfaction, decided to proceed ahead with the process of amalgamation suo motu as contemplated by subsection (1) of Section 44 of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that merely because APMC, Motala in 2005 itself and then APMC, Malkapur in 2008 withdrew their resolutions does not mean, it was not open to the DDR to proceed ahead suo motu under sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. He submitted that the proceedings were never dropped, though for some time they did not move further. 16. If the record of the case is perused in the light of these rival submissions, following can be taken as admitted position. (i) The process of amalgamation was initiated on the basis of the proposals submitted by APMC, Motala and by APMC, Malkapur for seeking their amalgamation as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. (ii) The APMC, Motala withdrew their proposal/resolution dated 19-8-2005 by resolution dated 30-12-2005 requesting the DDR not to amalgamate it with the APMC, Malkapur. (iii) Still the DDR vide letter dated 13-11-2007 forwarded the proposal to the State Marketing Board, Pune for consultation as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. In the letter dated 13-11-2007 the DDR made reference to both the resolutions passed by APMC, Motala dated 19-8-2005 and 30-12-2005 and then submitted that in view of the precarious financial condition of the APMC, Motala, his office found it necessary to amalgamate these Market Committees. Along with the letter he forwarded all the relevant materials. (iv) The State Marketing Board after considering the entire materials placed before it, on 04-12-2007 passed a resolution asking the DDR to amalgamate the Market Committees. (v) In the meanwhile, on 04-7-2008 the APMC, Malkapur also passed a resolution not to amalgamate the APMC, Motala with them. Along with the letter he forwarded all the relevant materials. (iv) The State Marketing Board after considering the entire materials placed before it, on 04-12-2007 passed a resolution asking the DDR to amalgamate the Market Committees. (v) In the meanwhile, on 04-7-2008 the APMC, Malkapur also passed a resolution not to amalgamate the APMC, Motala with them. (vi) When the proposal was forwarded by the DDR with his covering letter dated 13-11-2007 and when the State Marketing Board passed the resolution dated 04-12-2007, the proposal/resolution passed by the APMC, Malkapur dated 10-10-2005 was in existence. (vii) After the resolution dated 04-12-2007, passed by the State Marketing Board, was received by the DDR, he did not take further steps, which, it appears, prompted one Balkrishna Shankar Nafde and four others to file Writ Petition No. 3994/2008 in this Court, seeking directions to take all appropriate steps for deciding the issue of amalgamation of APMC, Motala and APMC, Malkapur forthwith. 17. With these admitted facts, we would now like to consider the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. This court while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 3994/2008 vide order dated 18-9-2008 had directed the DDR to take a decision in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard, if not taken earlier, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the said order. This direction was issued on the basis of the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the DDR was not taking a decision in respect of the proposal submitted by the Agricultural Produce Market Committees for amalgamation under Section 44(1) of the Act. Since this order was passed without issuing notices to the Market Committees and more particularly the petitioners, they filed Misc. Civil Application seeking review of the order dated 18-9-2008. When the said writ petition was disposed of, the APMC, Malkapur, had already withdrawn their resolution dated 10-10-2005 by passing another resolution on 04-7-2008. The petitioners thereafter filed M.C.A. No. 1204/2008, seeking review of the order dated 18-9-2008. Civil Application seeking review of the order dated 18-9-2008. When the said writ petition was disposed of, the APMC, Malkapur, had already withdrawn their resolution dated 10-10-2005 by passing another resolution on 04-7-2008. The petitioners thereafter filed M.C.A. No. 1204/2008, seeking review of the order dated 18-9-2008. Therefore, the statement recorded by this Court in the order dated 14-10-2008, disposing of the review application, that no proposal from the "concerned APMC" i.e. APMC, Malkapur was pending as on that date was correct and in view thereof this Court recalled the directions issued vide order dated 18-9-2008 and while doing so observed that "it is open for the State Government/competent authority in whom powers are delegated by the State Government under the provisions of Section 44 of the Act, to take appropriate steps, if necessary and if the State is satisfied that amalgamation of two APMCs is necessary, procedure in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 of the Act needs to be followed." It was further made clear that recalling of the order dated 18-9-2008 would not come in the way of the State Government or the competent authority if it decides to amalgamate two APMCs as per the provisions of Section 44 of the Act. It is on the basis of this order passed in M.C.A. No. 1204/2008 dated 14-10-2008, it was vehemently submitted by Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the DDR ought to have initiated fresh proposal and continuation of the proceedings initiated on the basis of the withdrawn resolutions of the APMCs was wrong and illegal. 18. Shri Madkholkar, in support, invited our attention to the affidavit dated 15-4-2010 of the Additional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and to paragraph 13 thereof in particular. In this paragraph the Divisional Joint Registrar has admitted that "there was no pending proposal for amalgamation before the DDR and he issued the impugned notification without ascertaining the need for amalgamation, without obtaining fresh proposals and also without consulting the State Marketing Board." This statement made on affidavit by the Divisional Joint Registrar, in our opinion, would not come in our way in taking a view that the impugned notification was issued by the DDR on the basis of the suo motu proceedings conducted by him for amalgamation as contemplated by Section 44(1) of the Act. The statements made by the Divisional Joint Registrar on the affidavit are not entirely correct and they seem to have been made for supporting the order of the State dated 07-5-2009, by which the petitioners' revision against the impugned notification came to be allowed. It is true that on the date when the order was passed by this Court on the review application and/or on the date of the affidavit there was no proposal pending before the DDR mooted by the concerned APMC. It is in this backdrop, the Divisional Joint Registrar further made a statement that the impugned notification was issued without ascertaining the need for amalgamation, without obtaining fresh proposals and without consulting the State Marketing Board. In our opinion, he made such statements on the assumption that the proceedings, which were going on and or in progress before the DDR at the relevant time was on the basis of the resolutions/proposals from these Marketing Committees or he was not aware about the suo motu proceedings. As a matter of fact, this Court while disposing of the review application vide order dated 14-10-2008, had observed that it is open for the State Government/Competent Authority i.e. the DDR to amalgamate two APMCs as per the provisions of Section 44 of the Act. This observation was made after recording that the proposal dated 10-10-2005 (i.e. the resolution passed by the APMC, Malkapur), at a later point of time was withdrawn. It is, thus, clear that an option to the State Government/ competent authority was kept open to take appropriate steps, if it decides to amalgamate the two APMCs as per the provisions of Section 44 of the Act. The order dated 14-10-2008 does not state that the State Government if decides to amalgamate should initiate 'fresh proceedings'. Similarly, in our opinion, this order did not prohibit the DDR from proceeding ahead with the suo motu proceedings, which were in progress at the relevant time. Perusal of this order shows that it does not make any reference to the suo motu proceedings, which were pending before the DDR and that he had consulted the State Marketing Board as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. 19. We add few more lines, why, in our opinion, the impugned notification was issued in suo motu proceedings. 19. We add few more lines, why, in our opinion, the impugned notification was issued in suo motu proceedings. The DDR had sent the letter dated 13-11-2007, addressed to the State Marketing Board, along with the proposal for consulting them as provided for under sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. At this state, it would be relevant to reproduce the letter dated 13-11-2007. The official translation of the letter reads thus : "To, The Director of Marketing, Directorate of Marketing, State of Maharashtra, Pune, Through :- The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amravati. Subject :- Regarding amalgamation of Motala Agricultural Produce Market Committee in Malkapur Agricultural Produce Market Committee. Ref'nce :- Your office Letter No. 1388/05, dated 13-10-05. Please peruse the subject referred to above. In the said matter, due to the precarious financial position of the committee, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Motala vide its letter No. 57/05, dated 25-8-2005 had requested your office for its amalgamation in Malkapur Agriculture Produce Market Committee. Thereupon, the remarks of this office were sought vide your above referred office letter. Accordingly, the information was sought from the Committee vide this office letter No. 14896/05, dated 29-10-2005. On it, as per the Committee's letter No.4, dated 18-11-2005, a letter was forwarded to your office for keeping independent existence of the Committee and it has been endorsed to this office. However, presently there is very less receipt of agricultural produce in Motala Committee. The Committee has to pay the loan and interest of the Agriculture Marketing Board as well as the gratuity of 3 retired employees. Similarly, the Committee is in loss. Because of this, it is not possible for the Committee to come out of the said situation. Hence, this office is of the opinion that there should be no objection for amalgamation of the said Committee in Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Malkapur. Enclosure:-Proposal sd/- illegible District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Buldhana." 20. From bare perusal of this letter, it is clear that the DDR made reference to both the resolutions of APMC, Motala and still forwarded the proposal for consulting the State Marketing Federation stating that his office, for the reasons mentioned in the last paragraph of the letter, was of the opinion that there should be no objection for amalgamation of the APMC, Motala in APMC, Malkapur. This clearly shows that despite withdrawal of the proposal by the APMC, Motala, the DDR in view of his satisfaction, as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 44, decided to proceed suo motu with the process of amalgamation for the reasons stated in the last paragraph of the letter and on the basis of the materials/proposal forwarded with the letter. We have also perused the proposal enclosed with the letter and we found that it contains all the relevant materials. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that though the proposal/resolution of APMC, Malkapur was alive/in existence at that particular point of time, still the DDR did not move further on the basis thereof, and he, as stated in the letter, decided to proceed ahead for the reasons stated therein. 21. In the circumstances, the first submission of Shri Madkholkar that the DDR ought to have initiated fresh proposal after following the due procedure contemplated by subsection (1) of Section 44 of the Act after the order dated 14-10-2008 passed in Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 1204/2008 deserves to be rejected. We hold that after the APMC, Motala withdrew their proposal/resolution for seeking amalgamation, the DDR proceeded with the process of amalgamation suo motu. Moreover, the resolution for seeking amalgamation passed by the APMC, Malkapur dated 10-10-2005 was alive and it was withdrawn on 04-7-2008. Therefore, there was no occasion for the DDR to send this resolution (dated 04-7-2008) or the objections, which were raised subsequently by them, along with other relevant materials to the State Marketing Board. The submission that after the resolution dated 04-7-2008 was passed by APMC, Malkapur and after they raised objections, the DDR ought to have sent the proposal along with the resolution/objections to the State Marketing Board, in our opinion, also deserves to be rejected. We do not find any such procedure, contemplated by Section 44 of the Act. If every change in the stand of the concerned APMCs, is required to be send to the State Marketing Board, the process of consultation would become unending and in that case the very objective of consultation would be defeated. The resolution passed by the State Marketing Board on the basis of the materials forwarded by the DDR, in our opinion, cannot be stated to be wrong and illegal, merely because their opinion was sought before consulting the APMC, Malkapur. The resolution passed by the State Marketing Board on the basis of the materials forwarded by the DDR, in our opinion, cannot be stated to be wrong and illegal, merely because their opinion was sought before consulting the APMC, Malkapur. When the State Marketing Board was consulted, as observed earlier, the resolution of APMC, Malkapur dated 10-10-2005 was in existence. 22. We would now like to consider the submissions of Shri Madkholkar that since there is no whisper about efficient regulation of marketing of any agricultural produce in the market area, as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act, the impugned notification is bad in law. He submitted that Section 44, which permits division/ amalgamation of Market Committee/s, requires that the State government should be satisfied on two points. Firstly, that it is necessary for securing efficient regulation of marketing of any agricultural produce in any market area, and secondly for ensuring economic viability of the Market Committee. He submitted that there is no whisper either in the letter dated 13-11-2007 issued by the DDR for consulting the State Marketing Board or in the impugned order on the first point and, therefore, the order/notification cannot be sustained in law. In support of this proposition, he placed heavy reliance on the unreported judgment of this Court in Sangali Agricultural Produce Market Committee and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 7519/2009 decided by the Division Bench on 11th January, 2010. He contended that it is mandatory for the DDR to record his satisfaction on these points/conditions and if an order is made without recording such satisfaction, the order would vitiate and on this count alone the impugned notification deserves to be set aside. 23. In order to examine the submission of Shri Madkholkar, we have perused the letter dated 13-11-2007 and the impugned order carefully. The letter dated 13-11-2007 states that "presently there is very less receipt of agricultural produce in Motala Committee." This letter is only a covering letter and therefore, the DDR was not expected to give an elaborate reasons while forwarding the proposal to the State Marketing Board. This, however, clearly indicates that he had before him the materials, satisfying him on the first point also and that he forwarded the very same materials to the State Marketing Board, which is also clear from the resolution passed by them. 24. This, however, clearly indicates that he had before him the materials, satisfying him on the first point also and that he forwarded the very same materials to the State Marketing Board, which is also clear from the resolution passed by them. 24. This Court in the Sangali Agricultural Produce Market Committee and others (Supra) has observed that when the statutory power of division or amalgamation is conferred on the authority subject to satisfaction of certain conditions, then comply with those conditions is mandatory. Therefore, when Section 44 of the Act empowers the State Government to order division of the Marketing Committee on being satisfied that the division is necessary for securing efficient regulation of marketing of agricultural produce in any market area and for ensuring economic viability of the Market Committee, it is mandatory that the State Government or its delegate record for its satisfaction about these two conditions and if an order is issued without recording satisfaction on the above said two conditions, the order would be invalid. Thus, from these observations it is clear that the DDR should record his satisfaction about these two conditions in the impugned order and not in the proposal forwarded to the State Marketing Board. 25. Section 44 of the Act undoubtedly mandates consultation before issuing notification providing for amalgamation or division of Market Committee/s. Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act, provides that the DDR after reaching satisfaction about the two conditions is required to forward the proposal to have effective consultation with the concerned APMCs and the State Marketing Board. In our opinion, it is not the requirement under this provision that the DDR should also forward his reasons for reaching the satisfaction about the two conditions namely, for effective marketing and economic viability. The DDR is expected to forward the entire materials, which were perused by him, for reaching such satisfaction and for deciding to proceed ahead with the process for amalgamation. In the present case, there is no dispute that the materials, which were before the DDR and which prompted him to proceed suo motu to amalgamate two APMCs, were forwarded to the State Marketing Board. In the present case, there is no dispute that the materials, which were before the DDR and which prompted him to proceed suo motu to amalgamate two APMCs, were forwarded to the State Marketing Board. We have perused the said materials from the original files produced by the learned A.G.P. The submission of Shri Madkholkar that the letter dated 13-11-2007 does not whisper about efficient marketing is factually incorrect, though, in our opinion, it was not necessary to say so in the covering letter dated 13-11-2007 addressed to the State Marketing Board. In order to examine this contention, we have also perused the impugned order/notification dated 17-1-2009, and in our opinion, the impugned order also makes a reference about the first condition/point and the observations in the order clearly show that the DDR was not only satisfied but he recorded his satisfaction with sufficient reasons in support thereof. It would be relevant to reproduce the official translation of the relevant observations in the impugned order made by the DDR, which read as follows: "The farmers take their agriculture produce for sale only to that Market Committee where there are sufficient facilities for sale and storage of their agriculture produce and the traders are also willing to deal in sale and purchase in such market committee where such facilities are available. Since all the facilities required for farmers and traders are available at Malkapur Market Committee and as not of the villages in Motala Taluka are geographically nearer to Malkapur Market Committee than Motala Market Committee as far as transportation is concerned, the farmers in Motala taluka also bring their agriculture produce at Malkapur Market Committee. As such, there is huge receipt of agriculture produce at Malkapur Market Committee whereas there is very less receipt of agriculture produce at Motala Market Committee. Since Motala Market Committee is financially weak, it is incapable to provide necessary facilities to the farmers, commission agents, traders and other elements." 26. Insofar as second point/condition is concerned, Shri Madkholkar did not advance any contention since the satisfaction about this condition i.e. economic viability is clearly reflected in the order/notification. Even the resolution passed by the State Marketing Board also clearly shows that the entire materials on both the points were considered by them. 27. Insofar as second point/condition is concerned, Shri Madkholkar did not advance any contention since the satisfaction about this condition i.e. economic viability is clearly reflected in the order/notification. Even the resolution passed by the State Marketing Board also clearly shows that the entire materials on both the points were considered by them. 27. Perusal of the impugned order/notification, thus, clearly shows that the DDR recorded his satisfaction with sufficient reasons about both the points/conditions namely, efficient marketing and economic viability. The impugned notification, in any case, cannot be stated to have been issued without recording satisfaction on the first point. The submission of Shri Madkholkar in that respect is rejected. 28. Next, we would like to consider the submission of Mr. Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no effective consultation as envisaged by sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. After inviting our attention to the resolution No. 5-B passed by the State Marketing Board on 04-12-2007, he submitted that it cannot be treated as effective and meaningful consultation. The State Marketing Board was consulted on the basis of the resolutions passed by the Marketing Committees which resolutions were subsequently withdrawn and in view thereof there was no proposal for amalgamation at the relevant time pending from the APMCs. He then submitted that Section 44 of the Act contemplates that the DDR should consult State Marketing Board only after consulting the concerned Market Committees. He submitted that while sending the proposal to the State Marketing Board for consultation, the DDR is expected to forward the opinion/objection, if any, of the concerned Market Committees. In other words, Shri Madkholkar submitted that in case of amalgamation, consultation with the concerned Marketing Committees, which are to be amalgamated, and it's outcome requires to be forwarded along with the report of the DDR containing the reasons for either agreeing or not agreeing with views of the Market Committees and then obtain opinion of the State Marketing Board. He submitted that if this procedure/sequence is not followed by the DDR in the process of amalgamation as provided for in sub-Section (1) of Section 44 of the Act, the consultation cannot be stated to be "effective and meaningful" as envisaged by this provision. He submitted that if this procedure/sequence is not followed by the DDR in the process of amalgamation as provided for in sub-Section (1) of Section 44 of the Act, the consultation cannot be stated to be "effective and meaningful" as envisaged by this provision. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Suresh Dyandeo Khumkar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 1987 Mh.L.J. 474; Ramrao Sitaram Kadam and others Vs. The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nanded and others, 1988 Mh.L.J. 68; Kalwan Agriculture Market Produce Committee, Kalwan and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 442 . He further submitted that even the if the State government is satisfied, still the consultation as contemplated under Section 44(1) of the Act must be about two conditions/points namely, efficient marketing and economic viability. In the present case, according to Shri Madkholkar, there was no consultation on these two points and therefore, the resolution passed by the State Marketing Board cannot be treated as consultation contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. He submitted that consultation with the State Marketing Board should be only after consulting the APMCs, which would enable the DDR to send the opinion/comments/objection, if any, of the concerned APMCs, alongwith the other relevant materials for the consideration of the State Marketing Board. Consultation would be effective and meaningful only if this procedure/sequence is followed. He placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his contentions in Shivram s/o Sonbaji Girhipunje and other Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2010 (1) Mh.L.J. 602 ; Ravindra V. Gaikwad and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2002 (5) Mh.L.J. 464; Indian Administrative Service (S.C.S.) Association, U.P. and others vs. Union of India and others reported in 1993 Supp.(1) SCC 730; 29. On the other hand, Shri Gordey, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted that it is not necessary to consult the concerned APMCs first and then the State Marketing Board. That is not the requirement of Section 44 of the Act. He submitted that consultation is a simultaneous process and the DDR is expected to forward all the materials which satisfied him to proceed with the process of amalgamation, and not the opinion/objections of the Marketing Committees. That is not the requirement of Section 44 of the Act. He submitted that consultation is a simultaneous process and the DDR is expected to forward all the materials which satisfied him to proceed with the process of amalgamation, and not the opinion/objections of the Marketing Committees. He submitted that issuance of the show cause notice and an opportunity of rendering explanation to the market committee/s is not the requirement envisaged by sub-Section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. He then submitted that having regard to the materials that were placed before the DDR, which were sent to the State Marketing Board and the resolution passed by them, it is clear that consultation was effective and meaningful. Moreover, he submitted that the process of consultation was started much before the order dated 18-9-2008 passed by this Court and before the so called directions issued by the Minister. Mr. Gordey, then submitted that merely because APMC, Malkapur opposed the amalgamation does not mean that the DDR could not have amalgamated the APMCs. In the present case, he submitted that when the State Marketing Board was consulted the first resolution passed by APMC, Malkapur was alive and insofar as the resolutions of APMC, Motala are concerned, they were communicated to the State Board. In support of his submissions, Mr. Gordey relied upon the judgment of this court in Tukaram Narayanrao Khandebharad and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. 679 . 30. At this stage, we would like to make reference to the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. This Court in Sangali Agricultural Produce Market Committee and others (Supra) has observed that sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act shows that before making an order of division of Marketing Committee, the State Government or its delegate are under a duty to consult the Market Committee concern and the Maharashtra State Marketing Board. Then by making reference to the judgment of this Court in Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dharni and others Vs. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati, 1986 Mah.L.J. 374 it was further observed that the requirement of consultation with the Market Committee/s and the Maharashtra State Marketing Board is mandatory. 31. Then by making reference to the judgment of this Court in Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dharni and others Vs. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati, 1986 Mah.L.J. 374 it was further observed that the requirement of consultation with the Market Committee/s and the Maharashtra State Marketing Board is mandatory. 31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalwan Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kalwan and others (Supra) interpreted the word "may" used in section 44 of the Act and observed that consultation is mandatory and the decision under Section 44 of the Act cannot be taken by the State Government before consulting the Market Committee or the State Marketing Board. It is further observed that "Section 44, no doubt, uses the expression "may", but considering the ambit and scope of the provision and keeping in mind the fact that such power can only be exercised to achieve the object set out in the said application, it must be held that no action can be taken by the State before consulting the Market Committee or the State Marketing Board." In Paragraph 19 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "it is only after the proposal is mooted out, that market Committees or Committee, as the case may be, and the State Marketing Board should be consulted." In that case, the proposal was moved on August 1, 2002 and therefore, consultation was necessary only after 1-8-2002 and before the impugned order dated January 23, 2003. As no consultation had ever made during the said period, it was held that there was no consultation and therefore, the order was set aside. 32. In Tukaram Narayanrao Khandebharad and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. 679 , this Court while dealing with the issue of consultation as contemplated by Section 45(1) proviso, in paragraph 10 has observed thus:- "10. However, we would approach the problem from other angle also. Was it really necessary for the State Marketing Board to give its opinion one way or the other ? We feel that the Board was free to express its opinion in any manner. The Board could have even expressed its opposition to the proposal of supersession. Question is, could such refusal be said to be fatal to the ultimate decision on the part of the DDR ? We feel that the Board was free to express its opinion in any manner. The Board could have even expressed its opposition to the proposal of supersession. Question is, could such refusal be said to be fatal to the ultimate decision on the part of the DDR ? Our earnest opinion is that even if the Board had refused to agree with the proposal of supersession, the DDR could still have proceeded ahead with the action, the only requirement being that it had to be shown that the DDR had taken into consideration the opinion of the Board, a body which was bound to be consulted. If the DDR had shown that he was alive to the contrary opinion on the part of the State Marketing Board, and in spite of the same, had decided to proceed, in our view, the process of consultation would still have been complete." (emphasis supplied) 33. In Shivram s/o Sonbaji Girhipunje and others (Supra), this Court while dealing with the issue of consultation as contemplated by Section 44, in paragraph 17 has observed thus: "17. The provision has to be read in its right perspective. Amalgamation or division of Market Committee unnecessarily shall depend upon satisfaction of the government in respect of the above referred factors and, therefore, the government/competent authority is required to apply its mind to each of these factors before getting satisfied whether there is a need to amalgamate or divide the Market Committee. We cannot forget that the process of amalgamation or division is not the empty formality. The process is required to be undertaken only if it would secure efficient regulation of marketing agricultural produce in any market area and for securing economic viability of the Market Committee and to achieve those objectives, it is necessary to amalgamate or to divide Market Committee. Reaching the satisfaction mentioned in section 44(1) is a first step to be taken by the State Government or by the competent authority before initiating the process of amalgamation or division of Market Committee. However, after reaching such satisfaction, the State Government or a Competent Authority is required to have effective consultation with the Market Committee/s and State Marketing Board which is a second requirement under section 44 before issuing the notification. The process of consultation is also not an empty formality and must be effective one." (emphasis supplied) 34. However, after reaching such satisfaction, the State Government or a Competent Authority is required to have effective consultation with the Market Committee/s and State Marketing Board which is a second requirement under section 44 before issuing the notification. The process of consultation is also not an empty formality and must be effective one." (emphasis supplied) 34. Our attention was also invited to the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Ravindra V. Gaikwad and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2002 (5) Mh.L.J. 464. In this judgment after referring to several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts in paragraph 10, the learned Single Judge has quoted a small passage from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Administrative Service (S.C.S.) Association, U.P. and others vs. Union of India and others reported in 1993 Supp.(1) SCC 730. The relevant passage reads thus : "Consultation is a process which requires meeting of minds between the parties involved in the process of consultation on the material facts and points involved to evolve a correct or at least satisfactory solution. There should be meeting of minds between the proposer and the persons to be consulted on the subject of consultation. There must be definite facts which constitute the foundation and source for final decision. The object of the consultation is to render consultation meaningful to serve the intended purpose, Prior consultation in that behalf is mandatory." (emphasis supplied) 35. In Suresh Dyandeo Khumkar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 1987 Mh.L.J. 474, the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the requirement in the matter of consultation of Federal Society as contemplated by Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, in paragraph 10 has observed that "mere forwarding a copy of the show cause notice by the District Deputy Registrar is not a compliance of the requirement as regards consultation." It appears, in that case, except sending a copy of the show cause notice, no other relevant material was sent to the Federation and since the reply submitted by the petitioners in answer to the show cause notice under section 78 was not sent to the Federation. In these circumstances, it was held, there was no consultation muchless any effective consultation as contemplated by Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act read with rule 64(2) of the Rules framed thereunder. In these circumstances, it was held, there was no consultation muchless any effective consultation as contemplated by Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act read with rule 64(2) of the Rules framed thereunder. 36. In Ramrao Sitaram Kadam and others (Supra), this Court dealt with the expression used in Section 44 of the Act, "after consulting the Market Committee or Committees, as the case may be, and federation of the Market Committees, if any" and the expression used in Section 45 that "no Market Committee shall be superseded without the federation or the Market Committee referred to in Section 44 is previously consulted." After considering these expressions, it was observed that the expressions "previously consulting" and "after consulting" must have the same meaning, so also the area and scope of consulting. 37. The process of consultation as envisaged by sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act is mandatory, and it has to be effective and meaningful and not merely superficial. The DDR for the purposes of complying with this mandatory requirement under this provision must send the "relevant materials" to the State Marketing Board so that it would form its opinion and send it within a reasonable time. In our opinion, the "relevant materials" would mean the very same materials, on the basis of which the State Government/DDR reached the satisfaction for initiating the process of division or amalgamation for securing efficient regulation of marketing of any agricultural produce in any market area and for ensuring the economic viability of the Market Committee. 38. Before we proceed further, it would be necessary to notice the difference between Sections 44 and 45 of the Act in order to examine the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. Section 44 of the Act empowers the State Government to issue notification providing for division of any Marketing Committee into two or more Marketing Committees or amalgamation of two or more Marketing Committees, on being satisfied that it is necessary for efficient marketing and for economic viability, only "after consulting" the Market Committees or Committee, as the case may be, and the State Marketing Board and that too after taking their opinion into consideration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the State Government to supersede a Market Committee, or remove the member, as the case may be, if it forms the opinion that the Marketing Committee or any member thereof, is not competent to perform or persistently makes default in performing the duty imposed on it or him by or under this Act, or abuses its or his powers or willfully disregards any instructions issued by the State Government or any officer duly authorised by it in this behalf arising out of audit of accounts of the Marketing Committee or inspection of the office and work thereof. However, for taking such action under Section 45 the State Government is obliged to issue show cause notice to the Market Committee or the member, as the case may be, and give them an opportunity of rendering an explanation. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Act states that no Marketing Committee shall be superseded without the State Marketing Board referred to in Section 44 being "previously consulted". 39. It is true that the expressions "previously consulted" used in Section 45 and "after consulting" used in Section 44 have the same meaning, so also the area and scope of consultation. However, what is relevant for our purpose is the procedure that the State Government/DDR are expected/required to follow for either consulting the State Marketing Board in case of an action of supersession or in case of amalgamation or division for consulting the Market Committees or Committee, as the case may be, and the State Marketing Board. In other words, apart from the procedure to be followed for consulting the State Marketing Board, what materials the State Government/DDR should send alongwith the proposal is also relevant for our purpose. Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and Section 45 of the Act are similar, though not identical. Under these provisions the action of supersession, the State Government/Registrar are empowered to take against the Market Committee/Managing Committee/Member, is penal in nature and, therefore, show cause notice is provided for, seeking explanation from such Market Committee/ Managing Committee/Member. Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and Section 45 of the Act are similar, though not identical. Under these provisions the action of supersession, the State Government/Registrar are empowered to take against the Market Committee/Managing Committee/Member, is penal in nature and, therefore, show cause notice is provided for, seeking explanation from such Market Committee/ Managing Committee/Member. Thus, for consulting the State Marketing Board, as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act, and the Federal Society as contemplated under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, is mandatory to forward not only the show cause notice but also the reply given by the concerned Market Committee/Managing Committee/Member, alongwith the other relevant materials. Though the area and scope of consultation under these provisions has the same meaning, the relevant materials that require to be sent to the State Marketing Board or the Federal Society, as the case may be, in case of an action of supersession, it is mandatory to forward, alongwith other relevant materials, the show cause notice and the reply given by the Managing Committee/Member. 40. In our opinion, that is not the requirement in the process of consultation envisaged by sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. This provision does not contemplate issuance of any show cause notice or opportunity of rendering an explanation in writing as contemplated by Section 45(1) of the Act. The requirement of sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act is only to forward all "relevant materials" for consulting the Market Committees/Committee, as the case may be, and the State Marketing Board, and unless the process of consultation is complied with and their opinion is considered the notification cannot be issued providing for amalgamation of two or more Marketing Committees or for dividing any Market Committee into two or more Market Committees. The stage of consultation, of course, would follow only after reaching the satisfaction mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. Thus, a show cause notice contemplated by Section 45, is not the requirement, in the process of division or amalgamation of Market Committees, under sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. The stage of consultation, of course, would follow only after reaching the satisfaction mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. Thus, a show cause notice contemplated by Section 45, is not the requirement, in the process of division or amalgamation of Market Committees, under sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, the State Government is obliged to send the very same materials to the APMCs and the State Marketing Board on the basis of which it formed the opinion or it was satisfied that amalgamation or division of Market Committees is necessary for effective marketing and economic viability. The concerned Market Committee or committees, as the case may be, and the State Marketing Board on being consulted, are expected to express their opinion as to whether amalgamation or division of Market Committees is necessary. The concerned Market Committees, on being consulted can certainly express their opinion opposing the proposed action of division or amalgamation of Market Committees. It is also the requirement of law that the DDR should take the opinion of the committees and of the State Marketing Board into consideration at the stage of taking final decision and/or before issuing the notification. Therefore, in our opinion, it is not necessary that the State Government/DDR should forward the opinion/objections expressed by the Market Committees/Committee, for consulting the State Marketing Board. It would not be correct, therefore, to state that merely because the opinion expressed by the concerned Market Committees or Committee, may be in the form of objections, was not sent to the State Marketing Board, the said consultation is neither effective nor meaningful. The State Government or the DDR as observed earlier are expected to forward the very same materials on the basis of which it was satisfied for initiating the process of division or amalgamation. 41. In the present case, we have perused the letter dated 13-11-2007, addressed to the State Marketing Board, which in short makes reference, to the reasons for initiating the process of amalgamation along with the proposal. From perusal of the proposal, we are further satisfied that the entire materials, which were necessary and relevant for consulting were sent to the State Marketing Board. We have perused the resolution passed by the State Marketing Board in which they have referred to the comparative charts showing all the relevant details. From perusal of the proposal, we are further satisfied that the entire materials, which were necessary and relevant for consulting were sent to the State Marketing Board. We have perused the resolution passed by the State Marketing Board in which they have referred to the comparative charts showing all the relevant details. The charts referred to in the resolution clearly show that the entire materials were before the State Marketing Board and that they have considered it carefully. From perusal of the resolution, it cannot be stated that the consultation was either not meaningful or effective and it was superficial. It would be advantageous to reproduce all the comparative charts, which are part of the resolution dated 4-12-2007 passed by the State Marketing Board. The official translation of the comparative charts read thus: "(1) The preliminary information of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Malkapur, District - Buldhana and Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Motala, District-Buldhana is as follows : Sr. No. Particulars Malkapur Motala 1. Date of Establishment 01/04/99 30-1-986 2. Talukas included in market area Malkapur Motala 3. Total number of village in the 67 121 included talukes. 4. Number of villages included in 67 121 the market area out of them 5. Main market place Malkapur Motala 6. Sub-Market Yards ---- Dhamangaon Badhe 7. Own Market No Yes 8. Cattle Market Yes Yes 9. Own Office building Yes Yes (M.M.) 10. Number of Agriculture Produce 52 48 and other Articles under regulation. (2) Receipts of Agriculture Produce in Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Malkapur, District-Buldhana and Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Motala, District-Buldhana and its value and market fee for the preceding five years are as follows Year Malkapur Motala Receipt Total Value Market Receipts Total Value Market In Quitals Fee in Fee 2001-02 6.07 6240.69 54.91 0.58 868.39 6.24 2002-03 10.21 13933.27 139.02 0.18 186.08 3.43 2003-04 10.33 23839.8 250.19 0.13 181.18 2.54 2004-05 Details not available 0.57 886.27 5.67 2005-06 Details not available 0.16 209.70 6.42 (3) Details regarding income, expenditure, surplus/deficit, establishment expenses, etc. of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Malkapur, District-Buldhana and Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Motala, District-Buldhana during preceding five years are as follows : Year Income Expenditure Surplus Deficit Establishment % of j j j j Expenses Establishment Expenses 2001-02 63.73 47.45 16.28 - 24.07 37.76% 2002-03 153.72 53.81 99.91 - 23.44 15.24% 2003-04 346.10 65.79 280.31 - 22.45 6.48% 2004-05 161.19 125.39 35.80 - 39.53 24.40% 2005-06 198.63 136.5 62.13 - 28.04 14.11% Malkapur Market Committee has gained surplus amount during all the five preceding years and the establishment expenses incurred during three preceding years is below the percentage prescribed as per the Government order, dated 2-5-2003. (B) Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Motala, District-Buldhana- Year Income Expenditure Surplus Deficit Establishment % of j j j j Expenses Establishment Expenses 2001-02 7.91 8.56 - 0.65 5.30 67.00% 2002-03 4.61 5.36 - 0.75 3.00 65.07% 2003-04 3.76 4.66 - 0.99 3.59 97.82% 2004-05 8.53 7.10 1.43 - 3.59 42.08% 2005-06 8.62 7.95 0.67 - 3.70 42.92% Motala Market Committee has gained surplus amount during all the five preceding years and the establishment expenses incurred during three preceding years is more than the percentage prescribed as per the Government order, dated 2/05/2003. (4) Arrears of Agriculture Marketing Federation outstanding against Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Motala, District-Buldhana. Loan Arrears: Date of disbursement Purpose of loan Amount 11/11/93 Auction platform, Bore-well, water arrangement 273000 04/02/94 Auction platform, Bore-well, water arrangement 273000 01/10/94 Office-cum-Godown 183250 729250 Since the term for repayment of the loan sanctioned to Motala Market Committee as above, is expired, the arrears of loan have been revived as per the demand of the Market Committee, vide Resolution No. 05 passed in the Meeting, dated 15/11/2005 of the Board of Directors of the Agricultural Marketing Federation. At last, the amount of loan arrears outstanding against Motala Market Committee as on 30-09-2007 is as follows :- L.C. No. Principal Interest Total Total outstanding Amount amount 10363 3,76,781 6,01,540 9,78,321 28,68,299 Motala Market Committee has paid the entire amount of contribution to the Agriculture Marketing Federation at the ends of year 2005-2006. The State Marketing Board after considering the proposal in paragraph 7 of the resolution, has recorded thus : "7. Section 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 provides for amalgamation of two or more market committees. At present, receipt of agricultural produce is very less in Motala Market Committee. The State Marketing Board after considering the proposal in paragraph 7 of the resolution, has recorded thus : "7. Section 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 provides for amalgamation of two or more market committees. At present, receipt of agricultural produce is very less in Motala Market Committee. The committee is due to pay loan and interest to the Agricultural Marketing Board and gratuity to 3 retired employees financial condition of the Market Committee is not sound." "Therefore, it is proper to amalgamate the Motala Marketing Committee into Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Malkapur as recommended by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Buldana in its proposal." "It is, therefore, proposed that the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Buldana be informed to take necessary steps to amalgamate the Market Committee of Motala, District Buldana into the Market Committee of Malkapur, District Buldana as provided by Section 44 of the aforesaid Act." 42. Perusal of the resolution from the original record, the part of which we have reproduced in the aforementioned paragraph, clearly shows that the entire materials that were relevant for consulting the State Marketing Board were sent to them and they not only perused the same but applied their mind and then passed the resolution dated 4-12-2007, recommending amalgamation of the two APMCs. From perusal of the resolution, it is clear that the materials forwarded and considered by the Board were sufficient to satisfy not only the Board but even to the DDR on both the conditions namely, efficient marketing and economic viability. 43. Insofar as the issue of consulting the Market Committees is concerned, in our opinion, even that condition/formality was also complied with by the DDR before issuing the impugned notification. When the proposal was forwarded to the State Marketing Board on 13-11-2007, the resolution of petitioner No.2-APMC, Malkapur dated 10-10-2005 was in existence. Hence, the question of sending their resolution/objections, which was subsequently passed/raised, did not arise when the proposal was forwarded to the State Marketing Board. Withdrawal of the proposal/resolution dated 10-10-2005 vide resolution dated 04-7-2008 was after more than six months from the date of forwarding the proposal for consultation. In view thereof, the submission of Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the consultation was not meaningful and effective since the objections of APMC, Malkapur were not sent to the State Marketing Board must be rejected. In view thereof, the submission of Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the consultation was not meaningful and effective since the objections of APMC, Malkapur were not sent to the State Marketing Board must be rejected. Even the submission that before consulting the State Marketing Board, the DDR ought to have consulted the concerned APMC also deserves to be rejected. In our opinion, the process of consultation is not one after another but it is simultaneous and independent of each other. Insofar as the APMC, Motala is concerned, their second resolution requesting not to amalgamate them with the APMC, Malkapur was considered by the DDR. As observed earlier when the State Marketing Board was consulted, at that particular point of time, admittedly, APMC, Malkapur was supporting amalgamation of APMC, Motala with them and, therefore, at that stage, the question of consulting the APMC, Malkapur did not arise. The elections of APMC, Malkapur were held in March 2008 and its first meeting was held on 19-4-2008. Thereafter on 04-7-2008 they passed a resolution and requested the DDR not to amalgamate APMC, Motala with them. In view thereof, it appears that the objections of APMC, Malkapur were taken on record and considered by the DDR. Moreover, there is no dispute that both the APMCs were given personal hearing by the DDR and the objections raised by APMC, Malkapur were also before the DDR when he heard them. In the circumstances, it cannot be stated that the APMCs were either not consulted or heard by the DDR before passing the final order. In the circumstances, we reject all the contentions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners on the point of consultation. 44. It is true that APMC, Malkapur was free to express it opinion in any manner and the DDR ought to have taken their opinion into consideration before passing/issuing the impugned order/notification. However, it is well settled that, even the adverse opinion expressed by either the Marketing Committee or by the State Marketing Board is not fatal to the ultimate decision on the part of the DDR. The DDR can still proceed ahead with the action. The only requirement is that the DDR should take opinion of the Market Committee and/or of the State Marketing Board into consideration before issuing final order/ notification. The DDR can still proceed ahead with the action. The only requirement is that the DDR should take opinion of the Market Committee and/or of the State Marketing Board into consideration before issuing final order/ notification. In the present case, we are satisfied that the DDR did take into account the opinions expressed by the APMCs, so also of the State Marketing Board. If the proposition that the DDR cannot pass order of either dividing or amalgamating the Market Committees if the Market Committee and/or the State Marketing Board has expressed adverse opinion, in that event the concerned Market Committee and/or the State Marketing Board would become the final authority to decide whether division or amalgamation is necessary which is not the purport of the provisions of Section 44 of the Act. After taking opinions of the Market Committees and the State Board into consideration, the satisfaction of the DDR that division or amalgamation is necessary for efficient marketing and economic viability are the only conditions about which the DDR should reach satisfaction for issuing notifications under sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. 45. Next, we would like to consider the submission of Shri Madkholkar that the impugned order/notification issued by the DDR was an order under dictate. He submitted that the DDR had no option but to issue the impugned order/notification in view of the statement made by the Minister on the floor of assembly and the directions issued by his office to the DDR to comply with the statement made by the Minister. It is true that the Minister had made such statement on the floor of assembly and the directions, as aforestated, were issued to the DDR. That all happened in December, 2008. The process of amalgamation, however, had started much before and the proposal was forwarded on 13-11-2007 to the State Marketing Board for consultation. He had completed all the formalities even before the statement was made by the concerned Minister on the floor of assembly. As observed earlier, the suo motu action initiated by the DDR was moving very slow. It started moving further after the order of this Court dated 18-9-2008 in W.P. No. 3994 of 2008, so also the order dated 14-10-2008 was passed on the review application. As observed earlier, the suo motu action initiated by the DDR was moving very slow. It started moving further after the order of this Court dated 18-9-2008 in W.P. No. 3994 of 2008, so also the order dated 14-10-2008 was passed on the review application. There was no prohibition or an order restraining the DDR in proceeding ahead with the process of amalgamation which he had undertaken suo motu. We have perused the impugned order very carefully and it shows independent application of mind and that the reasons recorded by the DDR in the impugned notification further show that, he was not influenced by the statement made by the Minister on the floor of assembly or the directions issued thereafter by his office. The impugned order clearly shows that for securing efficient Marketing and for economic viability the amalgamation is necessary. 46. Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contentions that the impugned order/notification is an order under dictate relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla vs. Greenworld Corporation Parwanoo, (2009) 7 SCC 69 and in Purtabpore Co. Ltd. Vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar, (1969) 1 SCC 308 . Relying upon the first judgment, he submitted that by no stretch of imagination the Minister could have interfered with independence of the power conferred on the DDR under sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act involving adjudicatory process. He submitted that even if it is assumed that the State Government/Minister have a supervisory jurisdiction but it is difficult to conceive that even the merits of the decision, which the DDR was expected to take in this case, could be discussed and the same could be rendered at the instance of the State Government/Minister. Insofar this proposition is concerned, we have no reason to disagree with the same. However, in the present case, it cannot be stated that the DDR issued the impugned notification merely because the Minister had made statement on the floor of assembly. The DDR has made reference to the statement made by the Minister in the impugned order/notification, but he has nowhere stated that he had to issue the impugned order in view of the said statement. In fact, he has passed a reasoned order justifying the action of amalgamation by giving all the particulars, which even we find sufficient for passing such order. 47. In fact, he has passed a reasoned order justifying the action of amalgamation by giving all the particulars, which even we find sufficient for passing such order. 47. In the second judgment in Purtabpore Co. Ltd. (supra), it appears that the jurisdiction of the State Government and the Cane Commissioner was co-ordinate. There the Cane Commissioner was definitely of the view that the reservation of area made in favour of the appellant should not be disturbed but the Chief Minister did not agree with that view and directed the Cane Commissioner to divide the reserved area into two portions and allotted one portion to the respondent and in pursuance of that direction, the Cane Commissioner prepared two lists and under the order of the Chief Minister, the villages contained in the list 'Ka' were allotted to the appellant and in list 'Kha' to the respondent. Thus the Cane Commissioner in that case merely carried out the orders of the Chief Minister, though the orders were issued in the name of the Cane Commissioner. The orders were, in fact, made by the Chief Minister and hence, were held to be invalid. Paragraphs 11 and 12 on which heavy reliance was placed by Shri Madkholkar read thus : "11. The power exercisable by the Cane Commissioner under Clause 6(1) is a statutory power. He alone could have exercised that power. While exercising that power he cannot abdicate his responsibility in favour of anyone-not even in favour of the State Government or the Chief Minister. It was not proper for the Chief Minister to have interfered with the functions of the Cane Commissioner. In this case what has happened is that the power of the Cane Commissioner has been exercised by the Chief Minister, an authority not recognised by Clause 6 read with Clause 11 but the responsibility for making those orders was asked to be taken by the Cane Commissioner." "12. In this case what has happened is that the power of the Cane Commissioner has been exercised by the Chief Minister, an authority not recognised by Clause 6 read with Clause 11 but the responsibility for making those orders was asked to be taken by the Cane Commissioner." "12. The executive officers entrusted with statutory discretions may in some cases be obliged to take into account considerations of public policy and in some context the policy of a Minister or the Government as a whole when it is a relevant factor in weighing the policy but this will not absolve them from their duty to exercise their personal judgment in individual cases unless explicit statutory provision has been made for them to be given binding instructions by a superior." (emphasis supplied) 48. It is true that in our case the Minister ought not to have made such statement on the floor of assembly and at the most could have stated that the Government will issue necessary directions to the DDR to decide the pending proposal before him within time frame. The anxiety of the MLAs, who asked the question to the Minister, and of the petitioners, who filed Writ Petition No. 3994/2008, was only to expedite the decision process initiated by the DDR under Section 44 of the Act. The DDR, undoubtedly was moving very slow in the matter. The reasons recorded in the order and supported by the resolution passed by the State Marketing Board clearly show that the DDR was fully satisfied that the order of amalgamation in the present case was necessary and accordingly, he passed the impugned order. 49. In the result, we are satisfied that the order/notification issued by the DDR satisfy all the tests/conditions under Section 44 of the Act and it warrants no interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, rule is discharged in terms of this judgment. No costs. Having regard to the view taken in the writ petition on merits, the Letters Patent Appeal No.58/2010 also stands disposed of. No costs. At this stage, Mr. Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, prays for continuation of the interim order that has been operating till this date, for a further period of eight weeks from today. We are inclined to grant his prayer. Order accordingly.