JUDGMENT : Mohinder Pal, J. 1. Both the aforementioned writ petitions and the applications preferred therein are taken together for final disposal as they have intermingling and overlapping facts. 2. By filing SCA No. 18224 of 2013 under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have sought directions to the respondents to declare elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Mehsana at the earliest since the term of the body was likely to expire in the month of March, 2014. 3. By way of SCA No. 564 of 2014, the petitioners have sought to challenge illegal and arbitrary notification dated 06.01.2014 issued by respondent No. 1-State in purported exercise of powers under section 52 read with section 5 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") whereby the State Government has declared its intention to bifurcate the Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), Mehsana into two Market Committees, i.e. APMC, Mehsana and APMC, Jotana. Petitioners have further sought directions to declare election of APMC, Mehsana at the earliest and directions to the respondent authorities to hold fresh elections of APMC, Mehsana and until such fresh elections were concluded, the petitioners be permitted to continue to hold the office of the Market Committee. 4. Facts leading to filing of SCA No. 18224 of 2013 and SCA No. 564 of 2014 are as under: "Petitioners of these petitions are duly elected members of APMC, Mehsana, from agriculturists' constituency. Election of the petitioners was held on 06.03.2010 and the elected body convened its first meeting on 01.04.2010. Therefore, term of this body was to expire on 31.03.2014. As per the provisions of Rules 5 to 17 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 ("the Rules" for short), at least three months period was required for conducting elections. In the month of November 2013, the petitioners body requested the respondent authorities to notify the schedule of elections. The respondent authorities were delaying to issue such notification. As per the provisions of Rules 5 to 17 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 ("the Rules" for short), at least three months period was required for conducting elections. In the month of November 2013, the petitioners body requested the respondent authorities to notify the schedule of elections. The respondent authorities were delaying to issue such notification. Consequently, the petitioners approached this Court for issuance of necessary directions to hold elections of the APMC, Mehsana before 31.03.2014 by way of SCA No. 18224 of 2014." 4.1 During pendency of this petition, the petitioners once again approached this Court by way of filing SCA No. 564 of 2014 with the grievance that APMC, Mehsana is sought to be bifurcated into two Market Committees by notification dated 06.01.2014 issued by respondent No. 1- State. Petitioners sought directions for setting aside this notification dated 06.01.2014 whereby the State has declared its intention under section 52 read with section 5 of the Act. Petitioners once again sought directions to the respondent authorities for declaring elections of APMC, Mehsana and continuance of their body till such elections are over. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has given chronology of dates of the events which have occurred during pendency of these petitions. However, such details may not be relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties, so these are not reproduced in this judgment. 6. Learned senior counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi, while making submissions on behalf of the petitioners, has raised two-fold arguments. It has been submitted that term of the elected body was going to expire on 31.03.2014 and as such the respondent - State was bound to fix a date for holding fresh elections well before the date of expiry, as minimum 90 days period was required to complete the formalities before concluding elections. He has referred to Rule 4 of the Rules which empowers the Director to fix a date and publish orders for such elections. It has been submitted that, by not declaring elections which were long due, the respondent authorities cannot be permitted to abuse their power by appointing Administrator. According to him, if at all fresh elections could not be held, the present Committee should be allowed to continue till such time new incumbents take their office. It has been submitted that, by not declaring elections which were long due, the respondent authorities cannot be permitted to abuse their power by appointing Administrator. According to him, if at all fresh elections could not be held, the present Committee should be allowed to continue till such time new incumbents take their office. He has referred to the statements of learned Government Pleader made during pendency of these petitions wherein it has been stated that till the decision of bifurcation is finalized, the body of the present petitioners will be allowed to continue. He has further referred to the orders passed in Civil Application No. 5158 of 2014 wherein directions have been issued to the State Government to extend the term of the present body as contemplated under section 11(4)(aa) of the Act. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the orders passed on 15.05.2014 wherein the Court directed that decision of the State Government for appointment of Administrator was subject to approval by this Court. It has been submitted that, from time to time the respondent State has been restrained from appointing Administrator till new elected body assumes its office. 7. While arguing against bifurcation, learned senior counsel Mr. Joshi has submitted that decision to bifurcate APMC, Mehsana into two parts was the result of mala fides. It has been submitted that respondent No. 4 was the person behind such bifurcation. According to him, after issuance of notification by the State Government on 06.01.2014, petitioners approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. After considering reply filed by the State, on 31.01.2014 learned single Judge refused to grant stay. Petitioners preferred LPA No. 230 of 2014 against refusal of interim relief and Division Bench of this Court intervened by directing that no order of dissolution of the Market Committee be passed before final hearing of the matter by learned single Judge. While arguing on mala fides, it has been submitted that after filing of the writ petition by the petitioners wherein the respondents were restrained from appointing Administrator, as a counter-blast, respondent No. 4 came with an idea of bifurcating the APMC, Mehsana into two parts. Simply for his political gains and for causing damage to the petitioners in an indirect way, APMC Mehsana has been bifurcated. Simply for his political gains and for causing damage to the petitioners in an indirect way, APMC Mehsana has been bifurcated. In support of his submissions, he has referred to the following two decisions: "(i) Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan reported in 1986 (2) SCC 679 ; (ii) Vithalbhai Hansarajbhai Radadiya v. State of Gujarat reported in 2006 (4) GLR 2747." 8. On the other hand, Mr. Prakash K. Jani, learned Additional Advocate General, while arguing on behalf of the State, has submitted that there is no hidden agenda regarding appointment of Administrator or for bifurcation of APMC, Mehsana. He has explained that there were 116 villages in Mehsana taluka and, after formation of new talukas, out of 116 villages, total number of 23 villages have fallen within Jotana taluka. According to him, 10 villages from Kadi taluka have been included in Jotana taluka. Thus, Jotana taluka consists of 33 villages. He has submitted that there was policy of the State Government that in every taluka there will be a separate APMC and this policy was in existence since 1962. In pursuance of this policy Director of the APMC issued a letter dated 18.06.2013 to various Market Committees asking for details to form such Market Committee at Jotana taluka. He argued that, apart from the State policy, number of representations have been received by the Government through Ministers wherein farmers have requested for setting up of a Market Committee at Jotana taluka as they were finding it inconvenient to take their produce to Mehsana. Mehsana district has 10 talukas and all these talukas were having separate Market Committees. While denying the arguments of learned senior counsel Mr. Joshi, it has been submitted that respondent No. 4 or the political party at State or national level has nothing to do with creation of APMC, Jotana as elections of these Market Committees are fought on local symbols which has nothing to do with the election symbol of national parties. Mr. Jani has denied any mala fides by respondent No. 4 or by the State. 9. Regarding continuation of petitioners in managing the affairs of APMC, Mehsana, it has been submitted that the petitioners were holding the post under the Act. They were elected to hold such post for a fixed period of four years which can be further extended for one year by the State Government. 9. Regarding continuation of petitioners in managing the affairs of APMC, Mehsana, it has been submitted that the petitioners were holding the post under the Act. They were elected to hold such post for a fixed period of four years which can be further extended for one year by the State Government. It has been submitted that the term of elected body has expired on 31.03.2014. There was no extension whatsoever given by the State Government to continue further beyond March 2014, however, the petitioners are continuing till today because of intervention of the Court. He has referred to the provisions of the Act and has submitted that, under no circumstances the petitioners could have been continued beyond the period of one year after 31.03.2014. However, their continuation beyond March 2014 was against the mandate of the people and against the provisions of the Act or the Rules. He has argued that as final order of bifurcation was passed on 20.06.2014, the Government was within its powers to proceed further in the matter as per law. In support of his arguments, he has referred to a decision of this Court in case of Mehsana District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd. v. Merda Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. reported in 1990 (1) GLH 279 wherein the issue of occupying position of power by the petitioners beyond the period for which they were elected was held to be against the basic principles of democracy and provisions of the Act and bye-laws. Similarly, he has referred to another decision of this Court in Jitendrabhai Chunibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2004 (3) GLR 2400 wherein powers of the State Government to amalgamate or bifurcate the APMCs have been upheld. 10. This Court has considered the submissions made by both sides. It is not in dispute that first meeting of the elected body has taken place on 01.04.2010 and as per section 11(4) of the Act, term of the body was to expire on 31.03.2014. The petitioners approached this Court seeking directions to the respondent authorities to commence the process of elections immediately as the date 31.03.2014 was approaching. It is not in dispute that first meeting of the elected body has taken place on 01.04.2010 and as per section 11(4) of the Act, term of the body was to expire on 31.03.2014. The petitioners approached this Court seeking directions to the respondent authorities to commence the process of elections immediately as the date 31.03.2014 was approaching. Before that petition could be decided, the petitioners once again approached this Court by way of another petition, being SCA No. 564 of 2014, expressing their apprehension and anguish against the State Government for issuance of notification and expressing its intention to bifurcate APMC, Mehsana. In this petition, they also prayed that, till the process of election is over, the petitioners body should be allowed to continue to administer the affairs of the APMC, Mehsana. 11. Now this Court is required to answer two questions: "(a) whether the State Government should be directed to start the process of elections of two bifurcated APMCS? (b) whether process of bifurcation of APMC, Mehsana is as per law and the State was within its powers to appoint Administrator till elected body comes in its place or the present body should be continued till process of election is over?" This Court would like to decide Question (b) first. It will be relevant to note that there is no extension granted by the State Government beyond 31.03.2014, however, the petitioners have occupied the position of power for which they have neither secured mandate of the electorate nor sanction or extension by the State Government. It will be relevant to note that, even members of the electorate could not have elected their representative beyond the period of four years and the State could not have extended beyond one year giving special reasons. Continuation of the petitioners beyond the period of four years is only because the petitioners approached this Court and with the intervention of this Court the petitioners have continued. Arguments of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners should be allowed to continue till elected members step into their shoes cannot be accepted in view of the afore-mentioned circumstances. Even otherwise, when there is dispute between the parties, Administrator, as provided under the Act, will be the right choice in fitness of the situation. 11.1 Learned senior counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi for the petitioners laid emphasis on Vithalbhai Hansrajbhai Radadiya (supra). Even otherwise, when there is dispute between the parties, Administrator, as provided under the Act, will be the right choice in fitness of the situation. 11.1 Learned senior counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi for the petitioners laid emphasis on Vithalbhai Hansrajbhai Radadiya (supra). This citation relates to a situation in which APMC, Rajkot is bifurcated when term of elected members was not yet over. However, in the present case, term of elected members of APMC, Mehsana was over in March 2014 and their continuation beyond this date is nothing but abuse of the process of democracy as under no circumstance extension beyond one year could have been granted under the Act. Similarly, case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India (supra) will not be applicable as that case relates to concession having been granted to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe for whom conditions can be relaxed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 11.2 Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel, has also referred to mala fides by the State in initiating the process of bifurcation. As explained by Mr. Jani, learned Additional Advocate General, there is no such mala fides as far as the petitioners are concerned; rather petitioners have enjoyed the power by taking advantage of the statement given by the respondent in the Court. Further apprehension of learned senior counsel for the petitioners regarding appointment of Administrator is also without any basis. Mr. Prakash Jani, learned Additional Advocate General, has submitted that, out of 217 APMCs in the State, only 2 or 3 are such where Administrators have been appointed, while rest of the APMCs are managed and controlled by the members duly elected by their respective electorates. This Court is further convinced that the State is acting as per its policy to have separate APMC at taluka level. As Jotana taluka is having 33 villages and there are representations from various quarters to have independent Market Committee at every taluka, the action of the State Government of having issued notification on 20.06.2014 for bifurcation of APMC, Mehsana was valid and legal. It is well established by now that if the State was acting within four corners of law, such interference to challenge every action of the State is neither permissible nor can be appreciated. 12. It is well established by now that if the State was acting within four corners of law, such interference to challenge every action of the State is neither permissible nor can be appreciated. 12. Question (a): Coming to the grievance of the petitioners in the first petition, being SCA No. 18224 of 2013, seeking directions to the respondent authorities to declare elections of APMC, Mehsana and APMC, Jotana, there is provision in the Act according to which a period of 90 days is required to complete the process. There is no reason for the State Government to delay the process of election. It is intention of the Legislature that elected representatives of people should run such APMCs. The members should be elected by democratic process. Accordingly, following directions deserve to be issued to the State to complete this process, as under: "(1) SCA No. 18224 of 2013 is partly allowed. The respondent State will initiate the process of election and will complete the same within a period of four months from the date of this order. This period of four months is given as necessary formalities and orders are required to be passed by the State Government before initiating the election process. Rule is made absolute accordingly; (2) SCA No. 564 of 2014 giving challenge to the notification of the State Government dated 06.01.2014 and final order of declaration dated 20.06.2014 is hereby dismissed. In SCA No. 564 of 2014, the direction of this Court to restrict the State Government from appointing Administrator is also set aside. However, prayer regarding directions to the State Government to hold elections have been separately granted in SCA No. 18224 of 2014. So no separate order is passed. Rule is discharged." In Civil Application No. 6384 of 2016, 10014 of 2014 & 6617 of 2014, where the applicants were sought to be joined as party respondents, no arguments have been addressed by either side. Otherwise also, deciding such applications will be a futile effort in view of the fact that the main petitions have been disposed of. Accordingly, these applications as well as the other applications seeking directions are disposed of having not pressed. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned advocate Mr. B.T. Rao, appearing on behalf of Mr. Otherwise also, deciding such applications will be a futile effort in view of the fact that the main petitions have been disposed of. Accordingly, these applications as well as the other applications seeking directions are disposed of having not pressed. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned advocate Mr. B.T. Rao, appearing on behalf of Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner, has requested for continuation of stay granted in SCA No. 564 of 2014 for a further period of one month. As stated earlier, term of the Committee was over in the year 2014. There was no reason for the Committee to have continued beyond this period, however, for one reason or other, they continued. Accordingly, request is declined.