Judgment 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. This petition was filed in December, 2011 to challenge the order passed by respondent No.4 and 2 dated 23.11.2011 and 2.12.2011 respectively. By the said order, an Administrator was appointed on Respondent No.6-Market Committee in exercise of powers u/s 15A(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963. The learned Single Judge of this Court entertained this petition and granted interim relief on 5.12.2011, which is still operating in favour of the petitioner. In the meantime, as the extended period of the managing committee of Respondent No.6 Market Committee expired on 19.11.2011, the petitioner applied for granting further extension of the term. That application came to be rejected on 29.2.2012. Accordingly, even the said decision of the Additional Secretary -Textiles and Cooperation, Government of Maharashtra dated 29.2.2012 is challenged in this petition after amendment. 2. As regards the challenge to the order dated 23.11.2011 appointing Administrator on Respondent No.6 Market Committee, the substance of the argument is that the said order is issued in excess of jurisdiction. In that, the managing committee cannot be blamed for not holding the elections within the extended time till 19.11.2011, which was essentially due to the Court proceedings pending between the parties. The issue regarding bifurcation of the Market Committee was challenged before this Court by way of Writ Petition No.8181 of 2009. That petition, however, was finally disposed of on October 12, 2011. It is not necessary to advert to the issues dealt with in the said decision except to reproduce paragraph 9 of the said order which reads thus: “9. As noted earlier, u/s 14(3) of the APMC Act, the term of the Board of Directors of Respondent No.6 cannot be continued beyond 25.5.2012 (read “18.5.2012” -which is the correct date) and, therefore, fresh elections will have to be held some time in May 2012. We have already directed that the proposal for bifurcation if submitted by Respondent No.4 by following the due process, shall be finally decided in terms of the scheme of section 44 of the Act within three months from today and, therefore, we are satisfied that no fresh elections are required to be heard (read “held”) within the period of coming three months.” (emphasis supplied). 3. 3. The argument of the parties will have to be therefore addressed on the basis of the spirit of the order and the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court reproduced above. The Court while considering the controversy, clearly opined that the proposal for bifurcation should be expedited and taken to its logical end within a period of 3 months from the date of the order. The Court also made it amply clear that no fresh elections were required to be held till then, at least till May 2012. 4. In that view of the matter, the question of failure of the managing committee to hold elections so as to constitute new managing committee of Respondent No.6 Market Committee until the issue of bifurcation was finally concluded would not arise. Indisputably, due to pendency of Writ Petition No.8181 of 2009, it was not possible to proceed with the elections. That was decided on 12.10.2011 with observation not to hold election till bifurcation of Respondent No.6. It is therefore unfathomable as to how the managing committee can be blamed so as to invoke powers to appoint Administrator on the Market Committee. Instead, it was a case covered by the exception contained in second proviso to section 14(3) of the Act. On this finding, it necessarily follows that the exercise of powers under section 15A was not permissible & at the same time, it was a fit case to extend the term of the managing committee till the bifurcation process was taken forward in furtherance and compliance of the order dated 12.10.2011 reproduced earlier by exercising powers under sections, 14, 15 read with 59 and all other enabling provisions of the Act. 5. Notably, none of the parties have challenged the opinion recorded by this Court in paragraph 9 of the order dated 12.10.2011. The challenge to the order passed on 29.2.2012 is on the basis that the present managing committee failed to complete the election process before 19.11.2011 and, therefore, was not entitled for extension of the period. As regards that reason, we fail to understand as to how the authority can take that into account for the reasons already indicated above; and inspite of the observation made in paragraph 9 of the order dated 12.10.2011 in Writ Petition No.8181 of 2009 referred to above. As regards that reason, we fail to understand as to how the authority can take that into account for the reasons already indicated above; and inspite of the observation made in paragraph 9 of the order dated 12.10.2011 in Writ Petition No.8181 of 2009 referred to above. Similarly, it is noticed that the order dated 23.11.2011 proceeds on the basis that the extended period of the present managing committee was coming to an end, therefore, the only option was to appoint Administrator. As aforesaid, the intent behind the order of this Court in Writ Petition was to continue with the process of bifurcation of the Market Committee and till such time, no election to constitute new managing committee ought to be held. In that situation, the authority was obliged to extend the period of the present managing committee till such time by exercising powers under the enabling provisions of the Act. The question of appointing Administrator in such a situation is completely misplaced. Further, there is no law necessitating appointment of the administrator for effecting bifurcation of the Market Committee. No such provision has been brought to our notice by the learned AGP. 6. In other words, the order appointing Administrator on the Respondent No.6 market committee cannot be countenanced. At the same time, the order refusing to extend tenure of the managing committee passed by the Additional Secretary referred to above will also have to be set aside for the same reasons. Instead, the petition ought to succeed to the extent that the authority shall consider the request of extending the term of the present managing committee until the bifurcation process is completed, expeditiously, by invoking powers under all the enabling provisions of the Act. 7. The learned AGP, on instructions, states that consequent to disposal of this petition and vacating the order of status quo, the authority would be now in a position to complete the bifurcation process within one month. The Respondent No.6 would then proceed to conduct election for constituting new managing committee of Respondent No.6, as it would remain after the bifurcation, as also of the bifurcated Market Committee for constituting managing committee of the concerned Market Committees, expeditiously. 8. The Respondent No.6 would then proceed to conduct election for constituting new managing committee of Respondent No.6, as it would remain after the bifurcation, as also of the bifurcated Market Committee for constituting managing committee of the concerned Market Committees, expeditiously. 8. We have decided the controversy essentially on the basis of the opinion recorded in the order dated October 12, 2012 in Writ Petition No.8181 of 2009 in paragraph 9, which has not been challenged by any party to the said petition and is therefore, binding on them. We make it clear that the validity of bifurcation decision or incidental questions thereto will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law as that is not the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 9. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 10. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the civil applications do not survive and the same are disposed of accordingly.