Judgment :- D.K. DESHMUKH.,J. 1] Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2] By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 27th August 2009 made by the respondent No.2 - District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sangli. By that order, the petitioner No.1 -Market Committee is divided into three Market Committees- (1) Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sangli; (2) Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kavathemahankal and (3) Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jath. 3] The petitioner No.1 - Market Committee is constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The market area of the petitioner No.1 - Market Committee extends to Talukas of Miraj, Kavathemahankal and Jath. The elections of the petitioner No.1 - Market Committee took place on 4th December 2001. The first meeting of the newly elected members of the Market Committee was held on 26th December 2001. As per the provisions of the Act, the term of the elected Market Committee is five years from the date of its first meeting held after the general elections. However, though the term of the elected Market Committee came to an end in December 2006, the elections to the Market Committee were not being held. Therefore, writ petition No.4801 of 2007 was filed in this Court, seeking a direction for holding elections to the Market Committee. That writ petition was disposed off by an order dated 31st October 2007. Perusal of the judgment in writ petition No.4801 of 2007 shows that one of the reasons that was given for not holding elections to the Market Committee was that the proposal for division of the Market Committee was under consideration. This Court, by its order dated 31st October 2007 directed that the process of election should be initiated. It also directed that the process of division of the Market Committee can also simultaneously go on. It appears that as the process of election was not initiated though directed by this Court, writ petition No.8997 of 2007 was filed in this Court. In that petition, an order was made on 22nd January 2008 which directed the respondent No.2 - District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sangli to complete the process of election. It appears that against that order, Special Leave Petition was filed in the Supreme Court. In that petition, an order was made on 22nd January 2008 which directed the respondent No.2 - District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sangli to complete the process of election. It appears that against that order, Special Leave Petition was filed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, the order reads as under :- Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. Election process to continue. However, if the Government proposes to trifurcate, then it shall be open to the Government to proceed with the same expeditiously.- In view of this order of the Supreme Court, writ petition No.8997 of 2007 was disposed off by this Court on 2nd April 2008. 4] It appears that the respondent No.3 - Sangli Chamber of Commerce had submitted a proposal dated 14th August 2006 for division of the petitioner No.1 Market Committee into three Market Committees. Pursuant to that proposal, the respondent No.2, to whom powers of the State Government under section 44 of the Act have been delegated, initiated the process of consultation with the petitioner No.1 Market Committee and the Maharashtra State Marketing Board. The petitioner No.1 Market Committee on 19th May 2007 passed a resolution supporting the proposal for division of the petitioner No.1 Market Committee into three Market Committees. The Maharashtra State Marketing Board, which is the other body which is to be consulted, by its resolution dated 4th December 2007 suggested that the decision whether to divide the Market Committee or not should be taken after considering the Court orders made from time to time, economic viability and the provisions of the Act. It appears that the resolution dated 19th May 2007 passed by the petitioner No.1 Market Committee supporting the proposal for division of the petitioner No.1 Market Committee was made before the elections were held. 5] Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, elections for the Market Committee were held and the newly elected Market Committee passed a resolution on 7th April 2008 cancelling its earlier resolution dated 19th May 2007 and passed a resolution opposing the proposal for division of petitioner No.1 Market Committee. It appears that in this background, the respondent No.2 by his letters dated 3rd April 2008 and 15th April 2008 sought guidance from the State Government in relation to the proposal for division of the Market Committee. It appears that in this background, the respondent No.2 by his letters dated 3rd April 2008 and 15th April 2008 sought guidance from the State Government in relation to the proposal for division of the Market Committee. The State Government, by its letter dated 25th April 2008 informed the respondent No.2 that he should take action considering the orders passed by the Supreme Court and the provisions of section 44 of the Act. On 7th May 2008, the respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the respondent No.3 Sangli Chamber of Commerce, in which the respondent No.2 referred to the events right from the initiation of the proposal for division of the Market Committee. He referred to the resolution of the Maharashtra State Marketing Board giving its opinion in relation to the proposal for division of Market Committee. He referred to the writ petition filed in this Court and the orders passed by this Court as also the order passed by the Supreme Court quoted above. He also referred to the letter dated 21st February 2008 from the State Government directing the respondent No.2 to start process of election as also the process of division of the Market Committee and submit his report to the State Government. Then he referred to the resolution dated 7th April 2008 passed by the newly elected Market Committee opposing the proposal for division of the Market Committee and cancellation of its earlier resolution dated 19th May 2007. The respondent No.2 ultimately informed the respondent No.3 that considering the orders passed by the High Court, Supreme Court and the resolution dated 7th April 2008 passed by the newly elected Market Committee opposing division of the petitioner No.1 market Committee, he has reached the conclusion that it will not be proper to divide the Market Committee and therefore, he decided to file the proposal submitted by the respondent No.3 Sangli Chamber of Commerce for division of the Market Committee. This decision was not challenged by the respondent No.3. The petitioner No.1 Market Committee and the Maharashtra State Marketing Board also did not challenge this decision i.e. the decision of the respondent No.2 not to divide the petitioner No.1 Market Committee. 6] On 25th August 2009, a letter was addressed by the State Government to the respondent No.2. This decision was not challenged by the respondent No.3. The petitioner No.1 Market Committee and the Maharashtra State Marketing Board also did not challenge this decision i.e. the decision of the respondent No.2 not to divide the petitioner No.1 Market Committee. 6] On 25th August 2009, a letter was addressed by the State Government to the respondent No.2. It was written with reference to the order dated 18th February 2008 passed by the Supreme Court which is quoted above and the resolution dated 4th December 2007 passed by the Maharashtra State Marketing Board and the respondent No.2 was directed to take appropriate action in relation to the division of the petitioner No.1 Market Committee with reference to the resolution of the Maharashtra State Marketing Board dated 4th December 2007. 7] Within two days of the letter dated 25th August 2008 i.e. On 27th August 2008, the respondent No.2 made an order deciding to divide the petitioner No.1 Market Committee into three Market Committees as stated above. In his order, he referred to the proposal submitted by the respondent No.3, the resolution passed by the Maharashtra State Marketing Board, the orders passed by this Court for holding elections, the resolution dated 7th April 2008 passed by the newly elected Market Committee opposing division of the Market Committee. He also referred to his communication dated 7th May 2008 holding that it will not be proper to divide the petitioner No.1 Market Committee. Then he referred to the letter of the State Government dated 25th August 2008 and observed that he is making the order for division of the Market Committee in order to implement the direction issued by the Government by its letter dated 27th August 2008. It is this order of the respondent No.2 dated 27th August 2008 which is challenged in this petition. 8] The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the respondent No.2 who is delegate of the State Government in so far as exercise of powers under section 44 of the Act is concerned, communicated his decision by his letter dated 7th May 2008 that it will not be appropriate to divide the Market Committee. 8] The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the respondent No.2 who is delegate of the State Government in so far as exercise of powers under section 44 of the Act is concerned, communicated his decision by his letter dated 7th May 2008 that it will not be appropriate to divide the Market Committee. It is submitted that in view of the decision contained in the letter dated 7th May 2008, the respondent No.2 could not have made an order for division of the petitioner No.1 Market Committee without first cancelling or withdrawing his decision contained in the letter dated 7th may 2008 after following law. It is further submitted that without withdrawing or cancelling his decision contained in the letter dated 7th may 2008, the respondent No.2 could have made an order for division of the petitioner No.1 Market Committee only in one contingency i.e. an event has subsequently taken place which makes it necessary for him to divide the petitioner No.1 Market Committee. It was submitted that neither there is any allegation that any such event has taken place nor any such event is referred to in the order dated 27th August 2008. It is submitted that it is clear from the order dated 27th August 2008 that the respondent No.2 had abdicated his power under section 44 of the Act in favour of the State Government. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 has made the order dated 27th August 2008 without complying with the mandatory requirement of section 44 of the Act. 9] We have heard the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. According to the learned counsel, the respondent No.2 has made his order for division of the Market Committee because he found that such an order is necessary for efficient regulation of marketing the agricultural produce in the area. He submits that though it is true that the order dated 7th May 2008 has not been withdrawn by the respondent No.2, the fact that he made the order dated 27th August 2009 which is contrary to the order dated 7th May 2008 shows that he has actually withdrawn that order. The learned counsel therefore submits that the order is valid and needs no interference at the hands of this Court. The learned counsel therefore submits that the order is valid and needs no interference at the hands of this Court. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 who supports the order and submits that perusal of the order dated 27th August 2009 shows that the respondent No. 2 has taken into consideration all the relevant material including his order dated 7th May 2008 before making the order. 10] Now if the record of the case is perused in the light of these rival submissions, following can be taken as admitted position :- A] That the process of division of petitioner No.1 Market Committee was started pursuant to the proposal submitted by the respondent No.3 dated 14th August 2006. In the process, the respondent No.2 who is delegate of the State Government, initiated the process of consultation with the Market Committee and the Maharashtra State Marketing Board. The Maharashtra State Marketing Board by its resolution dated 4th December 2007 advised the respondent No.2 to consider the proposal in the light of the Court orders, economic viability of the newly created Market Committees and the provisions of law in relation to the division of the Market Committee. The petitioner No.1 Market Committee by its resolution dated 19th May 2007 supported the proposal for division of the Market Committee. B] The elections to the Market Committee were held pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and the Supreme Court of India and the newly elected Market Committee on 7th April 2008 passed a resolution cancelling its earlier resolution dated 19th May 2007 and decided to oppose the proposal for division of the Market Committee. C] The respondent No.2 on 7th May 2008, after referring to all relevant events including the resolution of the Maharashtra State Marketing Board dated 4th December 2008, concluded that it will not be appropriate to divide the Market Committee. The decision of the respondent No.2 dated 7th May 2008 was not challenged by anybody and has become final. D] The respondent No.2 has also not taken any steps to recall or review his decision dated 7th May 2008. 11] The power to divide the Marketing Committee is conferred by section 44 of the Act on the State Government. The decision of the respondent No.2 dated 7th May 2008 was not challenged by anybody and has become final. D] The respondent No.2 has also not taken any steps to recall or review his decision dated 7th May 2008. 11] The power to divide the Marketing Committee is conferred by section 44 of the Act on the State Government. Section 58 of the Act empowers the State Government to delegate all or any of its powers under the Act by a Notification in the Official Gazette to the Director or any other Officer. Admittedly, the State Government has issued a Notification in the Official Gazette delegating its power under section 44 of the Act to the respondent No.2 District Deputy Registrar. The respondent No.2 as a delegate of the State Government, on 7th May 2008 decided that it will not be proper to divide the petitioner No.1 Market Committee. Therefore, the power of the State Government to divide the petitioner No.1 Market Committee in the facts and circumstances in which the proposal for its division was initiated stood exhausted on its exercise by the respondent No.2 and therefore the State Government had no power to issue a direction to the respondent No.2 to divide the petitioner No.1 Market Committee. It is clear from the order dated 27th August 2009, which is impugned in the petition, that the District Deputy Registrar has directed division of the petitioner No.1 Market Committee only to comply or implement the direction of the State Government contained in the letter dated 25th August 2009. On 25th August 2009, the State Government had no power to issue any direction to the District Deputy Registrar. In any case, while exercising its powers under section 44 16 of the Act, the District Deputy Registrar does not act as subordinate of the State Government but acts as its delegate. Therefore, the power under section 44 of the Act will have to be exercised by the District Deputy Registrar only after recording his own satisfaction as to the circumstance that must exist according to the provisions of section 44 of the Act before a Market Committee s division can be ordered. The respondent No.2, in exercising his powers under section 44 of the Act cannot base his satisfaction on a direction issued by somebody else, it will amount to a statutory authority abdicating its power. The respondent No.2, in exercising his powers under section 44 of the Act cannot base his satisfaction on a direction issued by somebody else, it will amount to a statutory authority abdicating its power. Perusal of the order dated 2w7th August 2009 shows that the respondent No.2 has not recorded his own satisfaction that division of the petitioner No.1 Market Committee is necessary for the reasons which are required to be recorded while making an order under section 44 of the Act for division of a Market Committee but the only reason given by him is that the State Government has directed him to order division of the petitioner No.1 Market Committee. In our opinion, the respondent No.2 could not have made the order dated 2w7th August 2009 dividing the petitioner No.1 Market Committee without first reviewing or recalling his decision contained in the letter dated 7th May 2008 that it is not appropriate to divide the Market Committee in case law permits him to review or recall the decision. Without recalling or reviewing his decision contained in the letter dated 7th May 2008, the District Deputy Registrar could have made an order for division of the Market Committee only in one contingency viz. A drastic change in the circumstances that prevailed on 7th May 2008 which made necessary for the respondent No.2 to order division of the Market Committee. No such change in the circumstances is not even alleged. In our opinion, therefore, the respondent No.2 could not have ordered division of the petitioner No.1 Market Committee. 12] As observed above, power to divide a Market Committee is conferred on the State Government by section 44 of the Act. It is sub-section (1) of section 44 of the Act which is relevant for our present purpose. In our opinion, therefore, the respondent No.2 could not have ordered division of the petitioner No.1 Market Committee. 12] As observed above, power to divide a Market Committee is conferred on the State Government by section 44 of the Act. It is sub-section (1) of section 44 of the Act which is relevant for our present purpose. It reads as under :- (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. Perusal of the above quoted provisions shows that before making an order for division of a Market Committee, the State Government or its delegate will have to record a satisfaction that division of the Market Committee is necessary for [1] securing efficient regulation of marketing of any agricultural produce in the market area and [2] for ensuring the economic viability of the Market Committee. Perusal of the order dated 27th August 2009 shows that the respondent No.2 has nowhere recorded this satisfaction. On the contrary, perusal of letter dated 7th may 2008 of the respondent No.2 himself shows that he has recorded a contrary satisfaction inasmuch as he has recorded that in his opinion, it will not be appropriate to divide the petitioner No.1 Market Committee into three Market Committees. It is now a settled law that when statutory power is conferred on the authority subject to satisfaction of certain conditions, then compliance with those conditions is mandatory. It is now a settled law that when statutory power is conferred on the authority subject to satisfaction of certain conditions, then compliance with those conditions is mandatory. Therefore, when section 44 empowers the State Government to order division of Market Committee on being satisfied that the division is necessary for securing efficient regulation of marketing of agriculture produce in any market area and for ensuring economic viability of the Market Committee, it is mandatory that the State Government or its delegate records its satisfaction about these two conditions and if an order is made without recording satisfaction on the above said two conditions, the order would be invalid. As in the present case, this mandatory requirement has not been complied with, the order impugned in the petition is invalid. 13] Perusal of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 44 of the Act further shows that before making an order for division of the Market Committee, the State Government or its delegate are under a duty to consult the Market Committee concerned and the Maharashtra State Marketing Board. In so far as the requirement of consulting the Market Committee and the Maharashtra State Marketing Board is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment in the case of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dharni and others v/s District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amravati, reported in 1986 Mh.L.J. 374 has, after referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, held that the requirement of consultation with the Market Committee and the Maharashtra State Marketing Board is mandatory. In the present case, we find that this requirement has also not been complied with. Earlier proposal initiated by the respondent No.3 dropped or filed by the respondent No.2 on 7th May 2008. As observed above, the letter dated 7th may 2008, the decision contained in the letter dated 7th May 2008 has not been reviewed or recalled. Therefore, obviously the order dated 27th August 2009 will have to be assumed to have been made pursuant to a new proposal. But, admittedly the respondent No.2 did not even make an attempt to consult the petitioner No.1 Market Committee before making his order dated 27th August 2009. Therefore, obviously the order dated 27th August 2009 will have to be assumed to have been made pursuant to a new proposal. But, admittedly the respondent No.2 did not even make an attempt to consult the petitioner No.1 Market Committee before making his order dated 27th August 2009. What is further pertinent to be noted is that even the resolution of the Maharashtra State Marketing Board which is referred to in the order dated 27th August 2009 is pursuant to the proposal initiated by the respondent No.3 which was dropped by letter dated 7th May 2008. It is thus apparent from the record that the respondent No.2 has not even made an attempt to comply with the mandatory requirement of section 44 of the Act. 14] In our opinion, therefore, looking at the matter from any point of view, the order dated 27th 23 August 2009 is infirm and invalid and therefore, will have to be set aside. In the result therefore, the petition succeeds and is allowed, the order dated 27th August 2009 made by the respondent No.2 is set aside. However, it is made clear that the respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to initiate a fresh process for division of the petitioner No.1 Market Committee in accordance with law if necessary. Civil application Nos.2978 of 2009 , 2979 of 2009 and 3026 of 2009 do not survive for consideration. Civil applications are disposed off. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited.