JUDGMENT : By way of present petition, the petitioner- Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Deodar initially challenged Notification dated 03.08.2016 issued by the second respondent-the Director, Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance, which was a Notificaiton under Section 5 of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1963, whereby intention was declared to exclude seven villages from the market area of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Deodar, seeking to include them in the area of Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), Lakhani. During the pendency of the petition, as the second respondent published final Notification dated 15.10.2016 under Section 6(5) of the Act, the petitioner further prayed for quashing the said Notification. 2. The entire premise on which the challenge is rested by the petitioner is by putting-forth a ground that the impugned Notifications are issued only with a view to oust the presently elected body of the petitioner Market Committee, Deodar and to appoint nominated Directors in the Market Committee, and that the same is being done as the petitioner is not supporting the ruling party at the State level. 3. The events in the background ending with the impugned Notifications constitute the basic facts of the case. Initially there was APMC, Bhabhar for the villages of Bhabhar and Deodar. By virtue of Notification dated 10th October, 2006 APMC, Bhabhar came to be divided into two different Market Committees, namely APMC, Bhabhar and APMC, Deodar. Thereafter on 09th September, 2013, the Revenue Department of the State Government created four new Talukas, namely Deesa Taluka, Deodar Taluka, Tharad Taluka and Lakhani Taluka in the Banaskantha district. Amongst the four Talukas created, except Lakhani Taluka, all other Talukas had their respective Agriculture Produce Market Committees for thier respective areas. It was stated that villages of Lakhani Taluka were part of market area of APMC, Deesa and there was a single Market Committee, Deesa. It was on 15th April, 2015 that two Market Committees, that is APMC, Deesa and APMC, Lakhani, were created by effecting such divisions. 3.1 The Deodar APMC was created on 10th October, 2016 and the market area of APMC, Deesa was comprised in 66 villages. However as stated above, by virtue of 09th September, 2013 Notification, issued under the provisions of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, Lakhani Taluka was created with inclusion of seven villages which were geographically near to Lakhani came to be included as part of Lakhani Taluka. However as stated above, by virtue of 09th September, 2013 Notification, issued under the provisions of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, Lakhani Taluka was created with inclusion of seven villages which were geographically near to Lakhani came to be included as part of Lakhani Taluka. Though Lakhani Taluka was created as above with inclusion of seven villages from Deodar Taluka, it was an exercise done by the Revenue Department of the State Government. The Department of Agriculture and Cooperation was yet to take necessary steps though seven villages had become part of Lakhani Taluka having been included from Deodar Taluka. It is this exercise that is undertaken as per impugned Notifications. 3.2 On 10th April, 2015 election to the APMC, Deodar took place and on 21st May, 2015 the election to the Chairman and Vice Chairman thereof was held. In exercise of powers under Section 5(1) of the Act, the Director, Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance, Gujarat State, issued Notification on 03rd August, 2016 whereby seven villages were included into the market area of Lakhani APMC by excluding them from market area of Deodar. Thereafter final Notification dated 15.10.2016 above was issued. 4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi with learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai assailed the impugned Notification by submitting that it was a political exercise intended to achieve a political end. It was submitted that the last elections to the petitioner- Market Committee was held on 10th April, 2015 and since panel opposed to the ruling party succeeded in the elections, the impugned Notifications were issued to get rid of the democratically elected body. It was submitted that Special Civil Application No.8685 of 2015 was required to be filed before this Court as the result of the election to the Chairman and Vice Chairman was not being declared. In furtherance of submission to brand the impugned action as politically motivated and mala fide in that sense, it was next submitted that President and other office bearers of a political party of Deodar Taluka being the ruling party of the State, made an application dated 16th June, 2015 to the Minister concerned to mention that Chairman of APMC, Deodar was acting against the interest of the ruling party. It was submitted that the impugned Notification of sending seven villages from Deodar Taluka to Lakhani Taluka is with a view to achieve politication motivation as the ensuing consequences would be the appointment of nominated members of choice under Section 54(2) of the Act. 4.1 Learned senior counsel harped on the following aspects to contend that the impugned Notifications were actuated by political mala fides and were issued with sole intention to dissolve the APMC- (i) the Revenue Department had issued Notification as back as on 09th September, 2013 whereby the revenue limits of Lakhani was already altered by inducting seven villages from Deodar Taluka. The same was acted upon also; (ii) between September, 2013 till April, 2015 no action for bifurcation was taken. Elections to APMC, Deodar was held in April-May, 2015; (iii) APMC, Lakhani is already constituted and nominated body has already been appointed. Now Notification dated 03rd August, 2016 to exclude seven villages from Deodar, APMC was with a view to dissolve the elected body of APMC, Deodar; (iv) the impugned Notifications were unwarranted as Notification on 09th September, 2013 was already issued and there was no rationale to suddenly resort to the powers under Section 6 read with Section 52 of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1963 after long gap except for mala fide purpose and under political dictates; (iv) the State authorities wanted to dissolve the Market Committee of Deodar and wanted to induct their own nominated persons to control the administration of the Market Committee; (v) there is no single trader with licnece or a single cooperative society from any of the seven villages of Deodar which is made to be included in Lakhani Taluka; (vi) none of the Directors of the present Market Committee happens to be from said seven villages to lend a reason for the action of the respondents; (vii) Tharad APMC has been differently and discriminatorily treated as the elections to Tharad APMC were held in September, 2014. Though there has been inclusion of villages from Tharad, Tharad APMC is not divided and body of Tharad APMC is not disturbed as it is politically convenient. 4.1.1 Projecting the aforesaid aspects, the impugned Notifications were prescribed by learned senior counsel for the petitioners as a colourable exercise of power. He relied on decision in State of Punjab Vs Gurdial Singh [ (1980) 2 SCC 471 ] for its paragraph 9. 4.1.1 Projecting the aforesaid aspects, the impugned Notifications were prescribed by learned senior counsel for the petitioners as a colourable exercise of power. He relied on decision in State of Punjab Vs Gurdial Singh [ (1980) 2 SCC 471 ] for its paragraph 9. Another decision also of the Supreme Court in Ram Pyare Chaudhary Vs State of Uttar Pradesh [ (1982) 1 SCC 671 ] was put into service to press the principle that statutory power of removing elected representatives before expiry of term and substituting non-elected persons is a drastic power and must be strictly construed. Yet another decision in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others [ (2012) 4 SCC 407 ] was pressed into service with reference to paragraphs 34 to 37 thereof to explain as to what could be said to be colourable exercise. 4.1.2 On the working of the provisions of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1963 it was submitted that for the impugned Notification issued, the consequences contemplated under Section 54 cannot ensue and the said provision cannot have operation in the facts of the case. According to his submission, Section 54 was an independent contemplation to apply in a situation where because of either alteration of the limits of the market area or where the market area is divided into two or more separate market areas, the Market Committee may be dissolve by the State Government and new Market Committee for each market area may be constituted. It was his submission that in the case where there is an exclusion or inclusion of the part of the market area comprised of villages, the provision of Section 54 would not apply. He further submitted that for applying Section 54 for its consequences two separate market areas must be created, and that such indication is available from the group of words ‘for each market area’ formed on account of alteration. His submission was that though it was possible to read Sections 5 and 6 with Section 52, as far as provision in Section 54 was concerned, it had a distinct ambit and operation. 4.1.3 Learned senior counsel was vehement in submitting that if the result of every alteration of the market area is of dissolution of old Market Committee, then, such political exercise could be undertaken at any convenient time and the functioning of the Committee would totally lack stability. 4.1.3 Learned senior counsel was vehement in submitting that if the result of every alteration of the market area is of dissolution of old Market Committee, then, such political exercise could be undertaken at any convenient time and the functioning of the Committee would totally lack stability. He attempted to buttress his submission by contending that in all statutes where the limits of the area is altered, the elected body in governance does not get dissolve necessarily. He proceeded to referred to the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 and that of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 to submit that where the territorial limits are changed by way of exclusion or inclusion of the area, the mid-term election is not contemplated but only consequence of such inclusion or exclusion is provided in respect of administration and in relation to the affairs. 4.2 On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Prakash Jani assisted by learned AGP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma submitted that the impugned Notifications whereby the seven villages were taken out from Deodar and included into Lakhani Taluka was an exercise in accordance with statutory provisions under the Gujarat APM Act, for which a requisite procedure was followed. It was submitted that when the Notifications were the product of statutory provision and permission, and were issued in compliance of the statutory requirements, they have to be held valid. He relied on decision in Bhubaneswar Development Authority Vs Adikanda Biswal [(2012) 11 SCC 731] and highlighted the principle therefrom that the court is more concerned with the decision making process, rather than the decision itself and the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the action of the authority extends to the aspect whether the decisional process was just and in accordance with law. 4.2.1 Learned Additional Advocate General proceeded to explain the object of creation of Market Committee. He submitted that for all 14 Talukas in the Banaskantha district, 14 Market Committees are functioning. He also highlighted the nature of the Market Committee as well as the nature of its managerial affairs and submitted that the Agriculture Produce Market Committee functions to facilitate buying and selling the agriculture produce. He submitted that for all 14 Talukas in the Banaskantha district, 14 Market Committees are functioning. He also highlighted the nature of the Market Committee as well as the nature of its managerial affairs and submitted that the Agriculture Produce Market Committee functions to facilitate buying and selling the agriculture produce. He submitted that alteration in the revenue area of taluka is always a valid consideration for reconstitution of market area for which the legal consequences would follow; a market area is created or altered in relation to or with reference to a kind of agriculture produce. It was submitted that convenience of the traders and agriculturists, is a relevant consideration for notifying or altering the market area. 4.2.2 For highlighting the Scheme of the Agriculture Produce Markets Act, he pressed into service the decisions in [ AIR 1962 SC 97 ], in [ AIR 1966 SC 385 ]. He thereafter relied on decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Jitendrabhai Chunibhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat [ 2004 (3) GLR 2400 ]. 4.3 Learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela for the private respondent adopting the submissions of learned Additional Advocate General, further relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kadubhai Esharbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.3041 of 2015 decided on 23rd February, 2015. He raised an additional contention that there was always a power with the State authorities to alter the limits of the market area and constitute new Market Committee for such area, before which the old Market Committee would have to be dissolved as per the statutory provisions. He submitted that there was no vested right for the elected body of a Market Committee to last for its terms when the powers of bifurcation and creation of new market area are expressly provided under the Act. He in the context highlighted the phraseology ‘save as otherwise provided’ reading with Section 46 of the Act to emphasise that term could be curtailed. He submitted that in the similar way would work Section 54 of the Act, in the facts of the present case. 5. The Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 is essentially a law relating to regulate the buying and selling of agriculture produce. For this purpose, it seeks to establish markets for agriculture produce. He submitted that in the similar way would work Section 54 of the Act, in the facts of the present case. 5. The Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 is essentially a law relating to regulate the buying and selling of agriculture produce. For this purpose, it seeks to establish markets for agriculture produce. Section 4 of the Act provides that State Government may by Notification appoint a Director of the Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance shall exercise the powers and duties under the Act, subject to general or special orders. Under subsection (2) the State Government may appoint officers as Joint Directors or Deputy Directors. Chapter III is contained provisions relating to declaration of market area, constitution of markets and establishment of market committees. The entire mechanism of the activities and affairs in the market area relating to buying and selling of agriculture produce, is monitored and supervised by the officers appointed as Directors by the State Government as well as by establishment of Market Committees under Section 9. Agriculture Produce Market Committee is constituted under Section 11 of the Act. 5.1 Creation and establishment of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee is basically an administrative action to be informed by the statutory provisions in that regard. Alteration of limits of the market area is also such function, however as an element of quasi-judicial application as the provisions contemplate inviting the objections and consideration thereof. The affairs and activities in market are managed by the Market Committee constituted under the provisions of the Act with an intake of democratic process, for, agriculture produce market and the buying and selling activities thereat is an inclusive process generated under the law where the traders and agriculturists in the market area would have a participatory role. 5.2 Proceeding to consider the statutory provisions relevant to the controversy, Sections 5 of the Act relate to declaration of intention of regulating purchase and sale of agriculture produce in a specified area. Section 6 is about declaration of market area. 5.2.1 Section 5 of the Act is extracted herein. “5. Declaration of intention of regulating purchase and sale of agricultural produce in specified area- (1) The Director may, by notification in the Official Gazettee, declare his intention of regulating the purchase and sale of such agricultural produce and in such area, as may be specified therein. 5.2.1 Section 5 of the Act is extracted herein. “5. Declaration of intention of regulating purchase and sale of agricultural produce in specified area- (1) The Director may, by notification in the Official Gazettee, declare his intention of regulating the purchase and sale of such agricultural produce and in such area, as may be specified therein. Such notification shall also be published in Gujarati in a newspaper having circulation in the area and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (2) Such notification shall state that any objection or suggession received by the Director within the period specified in the notification which shall not be less than one month from the date of the publication of the notification, shall be considered by the Director. (3) The Director shall also send a copy of the notification to each of the local authoriteis functioning in the area specified in the notification with a request to submit its objections and suggessions, if any, in writing to the Director within the period specified in the notification.” 5.2.2 Sub-section (2) of Section 5 as could be seen, provides that Notification under sub-section (1) shall invite objections and suggestions within specified time and that the same shall be duly considered by the Director. This process may lead to issuance of Notification declaring a market area under Section 6. 5.2.3 Section 6 reads as under. “6. Declaration of market areas.- (1) [“Save as otherwise provided in this Act, after the expiry”] of the period specified in the notification issued under section 5 (hereinafter referred to in this section as “the said notification”), and after considering the objections and suggestions received before its expiry and holding such inquiry as may be necessary, the Director may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare the area specified in the said notification or any portion thereof to be a market area for the purposes of this Act in respect of all or any of the kinds of agricultural produce specified in the said notification. A notification [under this sub-section] shall also be published in Gujarati in a newspaper having circulation in the said area and in such other manner, as may be prescribed. A notification [under this sub-section] shall also be published in Gujarati in a newspaper having circulation in the said area and in such other manner, as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law forthe time being in force, from the date on which any area is declared to be a market area under sub-section (1), no place in the said area shall be used for the purchase or sale of any agricultural produce specified in the notification in the accordance with the provisions of the Act: Provided that pending the establishment of a market in such area the Director may grant a licence to any person to use any place in the said area for the purchase or sale of any such agricultural produce and a licence so granted shall, unless, it is cancelled or otherwise ceases to be in force, continue in force until the establishment of a market in the said area and for such period thereafter as may be prescribed. (3) Nothing in sub-section (2) shall apply to the purchase or sale of any such agricultural produce, if its producer is himself its seller and the purchaser purchases it for his own private consumption. (4) The Director may, on the report of the market committee or an officer appointed by the Director in this behalf and after holding such inquiry as he deems fit, suspend or cancel any licence granted under subsection (2). (5) After declaring in the manner specified in section 5 his intention of so doing, and following the procedure therein, the Director may, at any time by notification in the Official Gazette, exclude any area from a market area specified in a notification issued under sub-section (1), or include any area therein and exclude from or add to the kinds of agricultural produce so specified any kind of agricultural produce. [A notification under this sub-section shall also be published in Gujarati in a newspaper having circulation in the said area and in such other manner, as may be prescribed.] 5.2.4 The stages contemplated for the purpose of operation of Section 6 are inter alia that the compliance of provision of Section 5 should precede. Thereafter the Director may declare the area specified in the Notification under Section 5 to be the market area, by issuing Notification under Section 6(1). Thereafter final Notification is issued under Section 6(5). Thereafter the Director may declare the area specified in the Notification under Section 5 to be the market area, by issuing Notification under Section 6(1). Thereafter final Notification is issued under Section 6(5). 5.3 In Govind Lal Chaggan Lal Patel Vs The Agriculture Produce Market Committee [ AIR 1976 SC 263 ], while considering the scheme of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, following observations made which are pertinent to the controversy at hand. “.... The power conferred by Section 5(1) or 6(1) is not exhausted by the issuance of the initial notification covering a particular area or relating to a particular agricultural produce. An area initially included in the market area may later be excluded, a new area may be added and likewise an agricultural produce included in the notification may be excluded or a new variety of agricultural produce may be added. This is salutary power because experience gained by working the Act may show the necessity for amending the notification issued under Sec. 6(1). This power is conferred by Sec. 6(5).” (Para 14) 5.4 The aforesaid provisions would be read with Section 52 of the Act which is a provision under which the State Government may denotify or divide market area. Section 52 reads as under. “52. Power to denotify or divide market area.- Subject to the procedure laid down in section 5; the State Government may, by a notification in the Official Gazette, declare that a market area shall cease to be such area or divide a market area into two or more separate market areas.” 5.5 Adverting to other attendant and relevant provision, Section 53 is about the effect of denotification or exclusion of market area, which is extracted hereinbelow. “53. “53. Effect of denotification or exclusion of market area.- (1) Where a market area ceases to be a market area,- (a) any market established therein shall cease to be a market, and (b) the market committee or committees established for the market area shall stand dissolved and the following consequences shall ensue namely:- (i) the members of the committee or committees shall vacate their office; (ii) the unexpended balance of the Market Committee Fund and other property and liabilities of the market committee shall vest in the State Government: Provided that the State Government shall not be liable to discharge the liabilities so vesting in so far as the same exceed the unexpended balance of the Market Committee Fund and the value of the property vesting in the State Government. (2) Where any area is excluded under section 6 from a market area for which a market committee has been established and such area is not included in any other market area or declared to be a market area so much of the Market Committee Fund and other property vesting in the market committee as the State Government may by order in wring direct shall vest in the State Government. (3) The State Government shall credit to the State Agricultural Produce Markets Fund such sum as in its opinion represents the fund and property vesting in it under sub-section (1) or (2).” 5.5.1 Section 54 vests in the Government a power to dissolve and constitute Market Committee when the limits of market is altered. The said Section is usefully reproduced. “54. Power of State Government to dissolve and constitute market committee on alteration of limits of market.- (1) When during the term of a market committee the limits of the market area for which it is established are altered or the market area is divided into two or more separate market areas, the State Government may by order in writing dissolve the market committee and direct that a market committee be constituted for each market area as formed on account of such alteration. The members of the market committee so dissolved shall vacate their office from the date specified in the order. (2) A new market committee constituted under the provisions of sub-section (1) shall consist of members nominated by the State Government and its Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected in the manner provided in this Act. The members of the market committee so dissolved shall vacate their office from the date specified in the order. (2) A new market committee constituted under the provisions of sub-section (1) shall consist of members nominated by the State Government and its Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected in the manner provided in this Act. The member shall, so far as in the opinion of the State Government may be practicable, be persons who were members of the dissolved market committee. (3) The members of such new market committee shall hold office for such period not exceeding two years as the State Government shall by order in writing specify. (4) On the expiry of the period of office of the members of a market committee under sub-section (3), the market committee shall be reconstituted in the manner provided in section 11.” 5.6 On a careful and conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions in Sections 5, 6 as well as Sections 52, 53 and 54, they envisage a total scheme. A declaration of market area is a contemplation flowing from interaction of Sections 5 and 6 on one hand and Section 52 of the Act on the other. When Notifications of declaring or dividing a market area is issued, the necessary consequence would be that the market area concenred shall cease and/or shall stand divided into two or more market areas. The alteration of limits brought about in the existing market area, as in the present case by exclusion of seven villages from Deodar and including them in Lakhani area, would result into formation of altered new market area. It would be a alteration of limits of market as contemplated and within purview of Section 54 of the Act. 5.7 The provision of Section 54 therefore would come into play when the limits of market area are altered or divided during the term of a market committee functional in the existing market area. In such eventuality of alteration or division, the State Government is vested with powers. The powers which would exercisable as a necessary consequence of alteration or division of limits, would be of dissolution of the Market Committee. The dissolution is a sequator provided for by the Legislature. In such eventuality of alteration or division, the State Government is vested with powers. The powers which would exercisable as a necessary consequence of alteration or division of limits, would be of dissolution of the Market Committee. The dissolution is a sequator provided for by the Legislature. 5.8 Having regard to the scheme of the aforementioned statutory provisions clearly discernible, there was a fallacy in the submission of learned senior counsel that Section 54 would not apply when the limits of the Market Committee is altered by exclusion or inclusion of the part of the area. His submission that in order to apply Section 54 there must be two market areas created which proposition he tried to deduce from the words ‘of each market area’ stemmed only from a misconception. When the market area is altered in its limit, in effect two new market areas would be created as per the altered parts or villages which are included and excluded. In this case, the seven villages were taken out from one market area named Deodar and they were brought to be included in Lakhani market area. It was a creation of two market areas with altered limits of respective markets. 5.9 Section 54 operates consequential upon a competent exercise of powers under Sections 5 and 6 read with Section 52. The Market Committee existing prior to the exercise of alteration or division could be dissolved and would be substituted by new Market Committee in terms of Section 54(2) which is a shortterm arrangement for not exceeding two years as per sub-section (3) of Section 54. The operation of Section 54(2) is a situation consequential yet distinct when Section 54 operates. 6. The above reading of the scheme of the provision of the Act could be safely deduced from the observations in the decision in Jitendrabhai Chunibhai Patel (supra), which was a case of amalgamation of two existing Market Committees. The contention was that the two Market Committees cannot be amalgamated as there was no express provision of merger. Negativing the case, the Division Bench held that the Government had power to exclude an area from the existing market area and include the same in another market area and that such powers would encapsulated also the power to merge and amalgamate the two area. 6.1 In the context, the Court highlighted the provisions and the working thereof, in the following words. 6.1 In the context, the Court highlighted the provisions and the working thereof, in the following words. “Sub-section (1) of Section 9 provides that the Director shall establish a market committee for every market area. Section 11 provides for constitution of market committee with 14 elected representatives from the constituency of agriculturists and representatives of co-operative marketing societies and holding general licenses in the market area and one member to be nominated by the local authority where the member market yard is situate and two members to be nominated by the State Government. The term of office of a market committee shall, save as otherwise provided in the Act, be four years from the date of its first general meeting. The power is conferred on the State Government to extend such term for a period not exceeding one year in the aggregate.” (Para 8.3) “In Chapter IX of the Act, Section 52 confers power upon the State Government to declare that a market area shall cease to be such area or divide a market area into two or more separate market areas. The same procedure as laid down in Section 5 is required to be followed either for denotifying the market area or for dividing the market area. Section 53 provides for effect of denotification or exclusion of market area. Where a market area ceases to be a market area, the market committee or the nominated committee stands dissolved, the members of the committee/s vacate their office and the unexpended balance of the market committee fund and other properties and liabilities of the market committee vest in the State Government. Subsection (2) of Section 53 provides that where any area is excluded under Section 6 from a market area for which a market committee has been established and such area is not included in any other market area or declared to be a market area, proportionate fund and property vesting in the market committee, as per the decision of the State Government is to vest in the State Government. Section 54 confers power on the State Government to dissolve and constitute market committee on alteration of limits of market area. Section 54 confers power on the State Government to dissolve and constitute market committee on alteration of limits of market area. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that when during the term of a market committee, the limits of the market area for which it is established are altered or the market area is divided into two or more separate market areas, the State Government may dissolve the market committee and constitute nominated market committee preferably from the persons who were members of the dissolved market committee. The term of members of such new market committee is not to exceed two years and upon expiry of such period, the market committee is to be reconstituted in the manner provided in Section 11. Section 55 provides for vesting of property etc. of dissolved market committee in new market committee.” (Para 8.4) 6.2 Following was further observed by the Division Bench, reading the provisions together. “A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions would indicate that after any area is already declared as a market area under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, such are may be denotified under Section 52 and the market area would cease to be such area. Similarly, under sub-section (5) of Section 6 an area may be excluded from out of an existing market area declared under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. Where such area is excluded under Section 6(5) or ceases to be market area under Section 52, the Government may either include such area into any other existing market area or may not include such area into any other existing market area. If the Government decides to include such area into an existing market area, the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 6 would come into play as they expressly provide for power to include an area into an existing market area in which case the procedure laid down in Section 5 will have to be followed. On the other hand, if the area which has ceased to be market area or which is excluded from an existing market area is not included in any other market area nor is it declared to be a market area, under subsection (2) of Section 53 of the Act, such portion of market committee fund and properties is to vest in the State Government as may be determined by the State Government. When an existing market area is divided into two or more separate market areas, the provisions of Section 54 would come into play. Similarly, when the limits of market area are altered during the term of a market committee, the provisions of Section 54 would come into play empowering the State Government to dissolve the market committee and to constitute a separate market committee for each market area being formed on account of such alteration.” (Para 9) (emphasis supplied) 6.3 The Notifications in respect of inclusion and exclusion of the market areas above, were found to be issued in accordance with law and with compliance of the statutory procedure envisaged. Objections were invited and they were considered. Out of 32 representations received, 31 representations supported and favoured the inclusion of seven villages into the APMC, Lakhani. Only one person objected. The objection was considered before issuing final Notification. Neither the petitioner-APMC, Deodar, nor its Chairman or Secretary raised any objection. This could be a sole ground not to entertain the plea of the petitioner calling in question the Notification when though objections were invited to give opportunity, the petitioner had never objected at the relevant point of time. The Notifications in question were in accordance with law. When they satisfy the legal requirements and amounted to competent exercise of powers, they have to be held valid for all its effective purposes. 7. There was no substance at all in the submission that Notification dated 09th September, 2013 was issued and after gap of two years the impugned Notifications came to be issued. Both the exercises were under different law operating differently for different purpose. The Notification dated 09th September, 2013 was by the Revenue Department whereby new Talukas were created with alteration of revenue limits deriving powers from the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. Both were independent exercise of powers. Though independent in themselves, it could be well said that the alteration of revenue limits was a bona fide reason to alter the limits of the market area comprised in such taluka area. In that way, the exercise which was undertaken under the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1963 was a connected and consequential exercise which resulted into the impugned Notification. In that way, the exercise which was undertaken under the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1963 was a connected and consequential exercise which resulted into the impugned Notification. The mere time-gap between the Notification under the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the impugned Notifications under the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Markets Act could not lead to inference by itself that the subsequent exercise was mala fide or colourable. 7.1 Nor the submission stood good that in case of Tharad taluka which was also altered in its limits under the same Notification dated 09th September, 2013, different favourable treatment was meted out to it, in asmuch as by filing further affidavit, the competent authority stated that in respect of Tharad also similar action and steps in accordance with law is going to be taken. 7.2 It lastly takes the Court to the contention that the impugned Notifications were actuated by political motive and was mala fide. It is well settled that burden to establish mala fides is very heavy on the person who asserts mala fide. In Mutha Associates Vs State of Maharashtra [ (2013) 14 SCC 304 ], in respect of charge of mala fide levelled against a Minister that his action was under an influence of a builder, the Supreme Court stated that even though the circumstances narrated by the High Court may have given a rise of strong suspicion that the Minister acted out of extraneous consideration, but the suspicion, howsoever may be strong, cannot take proof of the charge of mala fides. 7.2.1 The Supreme Court observed,- ”The law regarding pleading and proof “malice in fact” or mala fides as it is in common parlance described is indeed settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. The decisions broadly recognize the requirement of allegations suggesting “malice in fact” to be specific and supported by necessary particulars. Vague and general averments to the effect that the action under review was taken mala fide would not therefore suffice. Equally well settled is the principle that the burden to establish that the action under challenge was indeed mala fide rests heavily upon the person making the charge; which is taken as quasi-criminal in nature and can lead to adverse consequence for the person who is proved to have acted mala fide. Equally well settled is the principle that the burden to establish that the action under challenge was indeed mala fide rests heavily upon the person making the charge; which is taken as quasi-criminal in nature and can lead to adverse consequence for the person who is proved to have acted mala fide. There is in fact a presumption that the public authority acted bona fide and in good faith.” (Para 42) 8. It was observed in Indian Railway Construction Company Vs Ajay Kumar [ (2003) 4 SCC 579 ] that allegations of mala fide are more often made easily, then proved. The strictness applied in law for the proof of mala fide, may be stricter when one alleges a political mala fide, in particular in the cases of the nature as the present case is, where, the statutory exercise brings out certain results which may not be palatable to a particular group. Democratic activity is essentially a political activity, often involving political manoeuvring. Unless there is a blatant violation of law and gross misuse of powers, a mere allegation of political activity to assail a statutory action would not hold good, much less it would tantamount to substantiating a plea of mala fide. 9. The political pressure or political motive may not be a good argument at all without anything else legally sustainable. Nor does it add to a plea of mala fide by itself. Every political hummer and every political move do not become mala fide. The submission that there was some letter by political party’s person complaining about the corrupt behaviour of the Chairman of the APMC, Deodar and the statement that he was working against the ruling party, could be said to be hardly sufficient to establish that the Notifications of inclusion and exclusion of the villages in the market area was politically motivated on that basis. They were the statutory exercise and the process of statutory culmination with its all legal consequences, for which the powers were derivable by the State Government from the provisions and such powers were properly and competently exercised. The impugned Notifications were backed by total compliance of the provisions including inviting of objections and applying mind to the objections, wherein the petitioner had not chosen to object. The impugned Notifications were backed by total compliance of the provisions including inviting of objections and applying mind to the objections, wherein the petitioner had not chosen to object. Therefore once the exercise leading to impugned Notifications were valid in law, the allegations of mala fide are render too weak to stand and to be countenanced. Every political manoeuvring, unless amounts to violation of law, is no ground in a court of law. In the present case, neither of the circumstances sought to be made out, nor the averments and pleadings were sufficient to establish the plea of mala fide. Therefore all the contentions of the petitioner were teeth-less in their merits and on every score not acceptable and tenable in law. 10. For the aforesaid reasons and discussion and operation of statutory provisions of Gujarat Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1963, no ground could be established nor any found to be existing to set aside the impugned Notifications dated 03rd August, 2016 and 15th October, 2016. They were found to have been issued in a competent and valid exercise of powers. Therefore, the present petition does not book grant of any of the relief prayed by the petitioners. 11. The meritless petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. FURTHER ORDER At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioner requested that the present judgment be stayed and the position obtaining at present may be continued for some time. Besides that no kind of interim protection was operating during the pendency of the petition, for the reasons spelt out in the judgment and what is held hereinabove, the request could not be acceded to and hence, rejected.