JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these appeals and as such both these appeals arise out of impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 570 of 2017, both these appeals are decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.03.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No. 570 of 2017, by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the Special Civil Application preferred by the respondent no. 16 here-in-original petitioner and has quashed and set aside notification dated 09.01.2017 of the Cooperation and Agriculture Department of the State Government and thereafter has directed the State Government to hold the elections to the Bodeli Agriculture Produce Market Committee in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case within a period of one year from the date of the Notification, that is 02.01.2017, the original respondent State of Gujarat and others original private respondents have preferred present Letters Patent Appeal. It is required to be noted that Letters Patent Appeal No. 1299 of 2017 has been preferred by the original respondents-State Authorities State of Gujarat and others and Letters Patent Appeal No. 917 of 2017 has been preferred by the original private respondents. 3. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeals in nutshell are as under: 3.1 That originally one Market Committee viz. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bodeli was constituted which was for Sankheda Taluka as well as Bodeli Taluka. That originally larger area was known as Sankheda Taluka comprising of land admeasuring approximately 72297 hectare, consisting of 188 villages. That originally Sankheda was comprising of 71 Agricultural Cooperative Societies. The area of the original Sankheda was also included in the APMC, Bodeli. That the election of the Market Committee of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the APMC. Bodeli was held on 03.01.2013. Therefore, the term of elected members of the APMC, Bodeli including Chairman and Vice Chairman of the APMC, Bodeli came to an end on 2.1.2017. It appears that in the meantime, policy decision has been taken by the State Government to have a separate Market Committee for each Taluka. Bodeli was held on 03.01.2013. Therefore, the term of elected members of the APMC, Bodeli including Chairman and Vice Chairman of the APMC, Bodeli came to an end on 2.1.2017. It appears that in the meantime, policy decision has been taken by the State Government to have a separate Market Committee for each Taluka. That in all there were bifurcation of the Talukas all over the State and new 23 Talukas were carved out/established on 09.09.2013. That Bodeli Taluka was carved out of Sankheda Taluka and Jetpur Pavi Taluka in the result three new talukas were constituted viz. Jetpur Pavi Taluka, Bodeli Taluka and Sankheda Taluka. Consequently, the APMC, Bodeli was required to be bifurcated into two Market Committees i.e. APMC, Bodeli and APMC, Sankheda. That the State Government vide notification dated 15.07.2015 issued under Section 5 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 1963") declared its intention to constitute two new market committees i.e. Market Committee Bodeli comprises of Bodeli Taluka and Market Committee Sankheda comprise of Sankheda Taluka. As for considerable long time, no further steps were taken to constitute new Market Committees of Bodeli and Sankheda and in the meantime the term of the Market Committee. Bodeli (Original APMC, Market Committee) was to expire on 2.1.2017 and therefore, the original petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 16303 of 2016 before this Court for appropriate writ, direction and order directing the State Government to declare the election of the APMC, Bodeli (Original). That thereafter, after the term of the existing Market Committee-APMC, Bodeli expired on 02.01.2017, the State Government issued impugned Notification dated 09.01.2017 in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Act, 2013 and have nominated the committee for newly constituted APMC, Bodeli. 3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Notification dated 09.01.2017 and nominating the Committee of APMC, Bodeli, which was issued in exercise of powers under Section 52 r/w Section 54 of the Act, 2013, respondent no. 16 herein original petitioner one of the elected member of the then APMC. Bodeli who was elected from Agriculture Constituency preferred aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 570 of 2017. 16 herein original petitioner one of the elected member of the then APMC. Bodeli who was elected from Agriculture Constituency preferred aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 570 of 2017. That by impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the said Special Civil Application and has quashed and set aside the Notification dated 9.01.2017 by observing that State Government did not have any power under Section 54(2) of the Act to nominate the members once the term of the Market Committee has expired. The learned Single Judge has also observed that this was done even as a provision to be properly applied in the situation obtained was available in the statute. Learned Single Judge has observed that provisions of Section 11(5) (a) of the Act, 1963, ought to have been resorted to, instead the members are nominated and an advantage was gained by nominating them for maximum period of two years to rule the market committee. 3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the petition and quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017, State of Gujarat and others and other nominated members who were nominated as members of the Committee of the APMC, Bodeli (newly constituted Market Committee on bifurcation) and original private respondents have preferred Letters Patent Appeals. 4. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1299 of 2017, Shri Dilip Rana, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of appellants-original private respondents-nominated members of APMC, Bodeli (newly constituted after bifurcation) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 917 of 2017 and Shri V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants herein original respondents have vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017 by which the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Act, 1963 on bifurcation constituted two different Market Committees i.e. APMC, Bodeli and APMC, Sankheda and consequently in exercise of powers under Section 54(2) of the Act, 1963 nominated the members of newly constituted APMC, Bodeli (Newly constituted on bifurcation). 5.1 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. 5.1 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Shah, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated and/or considered the scope and ambit of powers conferred under Sections 52, 53 and 54 of the Act, 1963. 5.2 It is further submitted by Ms. Shah, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that as such after following due procedure as required under the provisions of Act, 1963, the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Act, 1963 divided APMC Bodeli into two Market Committees namely APMC, Bodeli and APMC, Sankheda. It is submitted that as such the constitution of the New Market Committee i.e. APMC, Bodeli and APMC, Sankheda by dividing APMC, Bodeli into two market committees viz. APMC, Sankheda and APMC, Bodeli has not been challenged. It is submitted that therefore, when the original APMC, Bodeli came to be divided into two market committees viz. APMC, Bodeli and APMC. Sankheda, it is well within the power of the State Government under Section 54 of the Act, 1963 to nominate the members of the new Market Committee. It is submitted that therefore, notification dated 09.01.2017 was absolutely in consonance with Section 52 and 54(2) of the Act, 1963. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017 by holding that he same is nothing but a colourable exercise of powers. 5.3 It is further submitted by Ms. Shah, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in observing that Section 54(2) of the Act, 1963 shall not be applicable. It is submitted that as such learned Single Judge has observed that Notification dated 09.01.2017 is a colourable exercise of powers on the ground that the provision which is made applicable, shall not be applicable viz. Section 54 of the Act, 1963. 5.4 It is further submitted by Ms. Shah, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that as such the learned Single Judge has materially erred in observing that State Government ha failed to exercise the powers available under Section 11(5)(a) of the Act, 1963. Section 54 of the Act, 1963. 5.4 It is further submitted by Ms. Shah, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that as such the learned Single Judge has materially erred in observing that State Government ha failed to exercise the powers available under Section 11(5)(a) of the Act, 1963. It is submitted that when the powers are exercised under Section 54 of the Act, 1963 and that too after the term of the Market Committee, the original market committee had come to an end and therefore, Section 11(5)(a) of the Act, 1963 shall not be applicable. 5.5 It is further submitted by Ms. Shah, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that as such in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, when the original APMC, Bodeli was divided into two market committees viz. APMC, Bodeli and APMC, Sankheda and consequently two different new Market Committees were constituted, the case would fall under Section 54 of the Act, 1963. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in observing that the purported exercise of powers under Section 54 of the Act, 1963 was not available. 5.6 It is further submitted by Ms. Shah, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State that learned Single Judge has materially erred in directing the State to hold election of newly constituted Market Committee-APMC, Bodeli within a period of one year from the date of notification i.e. 09.01.2017. It is submitted that once the newly market committee is constituted, number of administrative procedures are required to be completed as per Section 55 of the Act and therefore, some time is likely to be taken to complete the formalities as per Section 55 of the Act, 1963. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed the State Government to hold the election of newly constituted Market Committee within a period of one year. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present Appeals. 6. Both these appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate for the original petitioner. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Single Judge has not committed any error in allowing the petition and quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017. 6. Both these appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate for the original petitioner. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Single Judge has not committed any error in allowing the petition and quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, when the term of the elected body of the market committee had expired as far as back in the month of January 2017, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in directing to hold the election within a period of one year from the date of Notification i.e. 2.1.2017. 6.1 It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that Notification dated 09.01.2017 was without authority under the law inasmuch as Section 54 of the Act, 1963 shall not be applicable. It is submitted that as the Notification dated 09.02.2017 was issued after the term of Market Committee had expired and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the State Government did not have any power under Section 54(2) of the Act, 1963 to nominate the members once the term of the market committee has expired. 6.2 It is submitted that as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge as the term of the market committee had expired and therefore, for whatever reasons the election of the market committee could not be held, the State Government could have exercised the powers under Section 11(5)(a) of the Act, instead of nominating the members of the Market Committee in exercise of powers under Section 54(2) of the Act. 6.3 It is further submitted by Shri Vaghela, learned advocate for the original petitioner that in the present case Notification dated 09.01.2017 was issued after the term of the Market Committee had expired and therefore, none of the contingency mentioned in Section 54 of the Act, 1963 had arisen and therefore, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the State Government wrongly constituted the committee by nominating the members, in exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963. It is submitted that therefore, though the State Government did not have any power under Section 54(2) of the Act, 1963 to nominate the Members once the term of the Market Committee had expired and despite the same, the State Government exercised the powers, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed and held that the Notification dated 09.01.2017 was a colourable exercise of powers and learned Single Judge has rightly quashed and set aside the Notification. In support of his above submission and prayer, Shri V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate for the original petitioner has relied upon observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramansinh Narsinh Rathod and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 921 of 2017. 6.4 Alternatively, it is submitted by Shri V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate for the original petitioner that in any case and assuming without admitting that the State Government had power under Section 54(2) of the Act, 1963 to nominate the committee, in that case, considering sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963, the State Government ought to have included the petitioner as well as other elected members of the existing committee in the nominating committee. It is submitted that though the said prayer was made, it appears that as the learned Single Judge has not dealt with and considered the same, it may considered by this Court while considering the present Letters Patent Appeals. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decision, it is requested to dismiss the present Appeals and/or modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in consonance with sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that earlier the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bodeli was consisting of the Market Area of Sankheda Taluka and the Bodeli Taluka. The APMC Bodeli was constituted under the provisions of Act, 1963. After its constitution, election of Chairman and Vice Chairman was held on 3.1.2013 and the term of the elected body expired on 2.1.2017. The APMC Bodeli was constituted under the provisions of Act, 1963. After its constitution, election of Chairman and Vice Chairman was held on 3.1.2013 and the term of the elected body expired on 2.1.2017. In view of bifurcation of the Sankheda Taluka into two Talukas i.e. Sankheda and Bodeli, the State Government by Notification dated 15.07.2015 declared its intention to bifurcate the market area of APMC, Bodeli into two market areas i.e. Market Area of Sankheda Taluka and Market Area of Bodeli Taluka. That after considering the necessary objections for bifurcation, finally, the State Government issued the Notification dated 09.01.2017 in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Act, 1963, bifurcating the Market Area of APMC, Bodeli into two Market Areas i.e. Market Area of Sankheda Taluka and Market Area of Bodeli Taluka and thereby APMC, Bodeli came to be bifurcated into two different and separate market area. Consequently, in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963, the State Government also dissolved, altered/bifurcated the Market Committee Bodeli and constituted two different Market Committees i.e. APMC, Bodeli and APMC, Sankheda and nominated the members of the newly constituted Market Committees Bodeli and Sankheda. It appears that in the newly constituted and nominated market committee Bodeli, some members are retained/nominated who were the members of the dissolved Market Committee i.e. APMC, Bodeli (prior to its bifurcation). That by impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has set aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017. At this stage, it is required to be noted that Notification dated 09.01.2017 was a composite Notification bifurcating the APMC, Bodeli into two different and separate market area i.e. Market Areas of Bodeli and Sankheda which was in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Act, 1963, as well as nominating the members in the newly constituted market committees, which was in exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Act. From the impugned judgment and order, it appears that learned Single Judge has set aside the entire Notification dated 09.01.2017. It does not appear that the learned Single Judge has even set aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017, by which, in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Act, 1963, the APMC is bifurcated into two different Market Areas i.e. Market Area of Sankheda Taluka and Market Area of Bodeli Taluka. It does not appear that the learned Single Judge has even set aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017, by which, in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Act, 1963, the APMC is bifurcated into two different Market Areas i.e. Market Area of Sankheda Taluka and Market Area of Bodeli Taluka. The learned Single Judge has also not made it clear that whether quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017 as only with respect to nominating the members in the newly constituted Market Committee/Market Area. However, considering the averment in the petition and the relief sought in the main petition, it appears that challenge was only with respect to exercise of powers under Section 54 of the Act and therefore, we treat that by impugned judgment and order learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017 in so far as exercising the powers under Section 54(2) of the Act. 7.1 That by impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has observed and held that in the facts and circumstances of the case as Notification dated 09.01.2017 was issued after the term of the bifurcated Market Committee has expired and therefore, the State Government did not have any power under sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963 to nominate members, once the term of the Market Committee had expired and that State Government could have resorted provision of Section 11(5)(a) of the Act, 1963. 7.2 While considering the issue involved in the present appeals and the main petition viz. whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Government was justified in nominating members of the newly established/constituted market committees under Section 54(2) of the Act, 1963 and whether the State Government could have resorted to provisions of Section 11(5)(a) of the Act, 1963. whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Government was justified in nominating members of the newly established/constituted market committees under Section 54(2) of the Act, 1963 and whether the State Government could have resorted to provisions of Section 11(5)(a) of the Act, 1963. Relevant provisions of the Act, 1963 i.e. Sections 11(5)(a), 52, 53, 54 and 55 are required to be referred, which are as under: "Section 11(5)(a): Where the term of office of the market committee has expired, the State Government shall, by order published in the Official Gazette, direct that: (i) such person as may be appointed by the State Government from time to time shall be the Administrator to manage the affairs of the market committee during the period beginning with the date specified in the order and ending on the day immediately preceding the date of the first general meeting of the market committee as reconstituted on the expiry of the term of the market committee (hereinafter in this sub-section referred to as the "said period"). (ii) the market committee shall be reconstituted within such period not exceeding one year in the aggregate as may be specified in the order. (b) During the said period, all powers, functions and duties of the market committee under this Act shall be exercised and performed by the Administrator. (c) The Administrator may by an order in writing delegate any of the powers, functions and duties to be exercised or performed by him under clause (b) to any officer for the time being employed by the market committee. (d) The Administrator shall receive such re-numeration from the Market Committee Fund as the State Government may from time to time y general or special order determined. 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. 53. Effect of de-notification 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. 53. Effect of de-notification 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. (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 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 to vesting in so far as 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 s 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 writing direct shall vest in the State Government. (3) The State Government shall credit to the State Agricultural Produce Market Fund such sum as in its opinion represents the fund and property vesting in it under sub-sections (1) or (2). 54. Power to State Government to dissolve and constitute market committee or alteration of limits of market: (1) When during the term of a market committee the limit 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 consists 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. 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 member 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." 7.3 It is not in dispute that in the present case the Market Area of APMC, Bodeli, on establishment of two Talukas viz. Sankheda Taluka and Bodeli Taluka, the Market Area of the APMC. Bodeli which was consisting of areas of Sankheda and Bodeli is bifurcated into two market areas viz. Market Area of Sankheda Taluka and Market Area of Bodeli Taluka. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Act, 1963, APMC Bodeli has been divided/bifurcated into two market areas i.e. Market Area of Sankheda Taluka and Market Area of Bodeli Taluka. It appears that bifurcation of the Market Areas of the Bodeli into two different Market Area viz. Market Area of Sankheda Taluka and Market Area of Bodeli Taluka is not under challenge. What shall be the consequence of Notification under Section 52 of the Act i.e. bifurcation/division of market area into two or more separate market areas is provided under sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963. Sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963 shall operate under two different eventualities: (1) When during the term of the Market Committee the limit of Market Area for which it is established are altered or (2) the market area is divided into two or more separate Market Areas. Sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963 further provides that in case of aforesaid two eventualities, 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. It also further provides that members of the market committee so dissolved shall vacate their office from the date specified in the order. It also further provides that members of the market committee so dissolved shall vacate their office from the date specified in the order. Therefore, considering sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963, in the present case when the market area of Bodeli came to be divided into two separate market areas i.e. Market Area of Sankheda Taluka and Market Area of Bodeli Taluka, in exercise of powers under Section 54(2) of the Act, 1963, the State Government was authorized to dissolve the market committee (in the present case Market Committee, Bodeli) and the State Government was authorized to constitute the Market Committee for each market area viz. Market Area of Sankheda and Market Area of Bodeli on account of such alteration. Under the circumstances, when Market Area Bodeli came to be divided into two separate market areas, the Market Committee Bodeli (prior to its bifurcation) shall have to be dissolved as unless and until, the erstwhile Market Committee is dissolved, there cannot be a constitution of new Market Committee of the bifurcated market areas as formed on account of such alteration. Consequently, the members of the market committee so dissolved shall have to vacate their office. On conjoint reading of Sections 52 and 54 of the Act, 1963, it appears that powers conferred under Section 54(1) of the Act, 1963 are consequence of the Notification issued under Section 52 of the Act, 1963. Once the original Market Committee is dissolved on division of the market committee into two or more market areas and consequently original market committee is dissolved, thereafter the members of the Market Committee so dissolved shall not have any right to continue as members of the Market Committee, however subject to sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963. 7.4 Once the new Market Committee is constituted under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963, it shall consists members nominated by the State Government and its Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be taken elected in the manner provided in the Act, 1963. Under the circumstances, when on division of the market area of APMC, Bodeli into two market areas viz. Under the circumstances, when on division of the market area of APMC, Bodeli into two market areas viz. Market Area of Sankheda and Market Area of Bodeli in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Act, 1963 and thereafter, the original market area has been altered/bifurcated from the area/APMC Bodeli and two different market committees are constituted viz. APMC Sankheda and APMC Bodeli, the State Government is authorized to constitute new market committees under the provision of Section 54 of the Act, 1963 which shall consist of members nominated by the State Government. Under the circumstances, State Government is authorized and empowered to nominate members of the newly constituted market committees viz. Market Committee, Bodeli and Market Committee, Sankheda. The learned Single Judge has materially erred in observing and holding that the State Government do not have any power under Section 54(2) of the Act, 1963 to nominate the members once the term of the market committee has expired. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the State Government is authorized to exercise the powers under subsection (1) of Section 54 either when during the term of market committee, the limit 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 word used are or. Therefore, once the market area is divided into two or more separate market areas, irrespective of the fact whether the same was during the term of the market committee or thereafter, the State Government is authorized to exercise the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963. Once the new market committees are constituted by the State Government in exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 54, sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Act shall come into play and State Government is authorized to constitute new market committee under the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963 which shall consist of members nominated by the State Government. Under the circumstances, learned Single Judge has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017, by which, the members are nominated by the State Government in the newly constituted market committees viz. Market Committee, Bodeli and Market Committee, Sankheda. Under the circumstances, learned Single Judge has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017, by which, the members are nominated by the State Government in the newly constituted market committees viz. Market Committee, Bodeli and Market Committee, Sankheda. 7.5 The learned Single Judge has also materially erred in observing that the State Government could have resorted to provisions of Section 11(5)(a) of the Act, 1963. On considering Section 11(5)(a) of the Act, 1963, it appears that Section 11(5)(a) of the Act, 1963 shall be applicable only in a case where term of the office of the Market Committee has expired. However, the said provision is required to be read along with Sections 52 and 54 of the Act, 1963. If the observations made by the learned Single Judge that the State Government could have resorted to provision of Section 11(5)(a) of the Act, 1963 is accepted, in that case, Section 54 of the Act, 1963 shall become nugatory and/or redundant. Section 11(5)(a) of the Act, shall be applicable only in a case where there is no alteration of the limit of the Market area during the term of the Market Committee or the Market Area is not divided into two or more separate market areas. Section 11(5)(a) of the Act, 1963 shall not be applicable in a case where the powers are exercised by the State Government under Section 52 and 54 of the At, 1963. In other words, Section 11(5)(a) of the Act, 1963 shall be applicable only in a case where there is no change in the constitution of the Market Committee and during the tem of the Market Committee limit, of the Market Area for which it is established are not altered or the market area is not divided into two or more separate market areas. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017. 8. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramansinh Narsinh Rathod and Others (supra) is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that any observations by the Court in the judgment are required to be considered in light of the controversy/issue involved in the matter. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramansinh Narsinh Rathod and Others (supra) is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that any observations by the Court in the judgment are required to be considered in light of the controversy/issue involved in the matter. In the case before the Division Bench, the nominated body in the APMC, Rajpipla who were appointed pursuant to the Notification under Section 54(2) of the Act prayed for writ of mandamus directing the State Government to continue them as members of the newly constituted Market Committee, Rajpipla for full term of two years. It appears that during the two years term, the State Government declared the election of the newly constituted APMC, Rajpipla which was challenged by the nominated members who were nominated under sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Act. Too that the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench and with respect to that, the Division Bench made the aforesaid observations. There was no direct issue/question before the Division Bench in the aforesaid case with respect to exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963. Under the circumstances, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramansinh Narsinh Rathod and Others (supra) shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 9. However, learned advocate for the original petitioner is justified in submitting that even in the new Market Committee constituted under the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963, it shall consists members nominated by the State Government, in that case also, the members shall so far as in the opinion of the State Government may be practicable, be persons who were members of the dissolved market committee. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was elected members of the dissolved APMC, Bodeli from the agricultural constituency. Therefore, the petitioner being members of the dissolved Market Committee, Bodeli is required to be included in the newly constituted Market Committee, Bodeli and the State Government is required to nominate the petitioner as member of the newly constituted Market Committee, Bodeli, unless, there is valid reason not to nominate the petitioner as member of the newly constituted Market Committee, Bodeli. As the word used under sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Act are that "members shall" so far as in the opinion of the State Government may be practicable, be persons who were members of the dissolved market committee. Therefore, it is the mandate that in the newly constituted Market Committee, constituted under the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963, nominated member shall so far as in the opinion of the State Government may be practicable, be persons who were members of dissolved Market Committee. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State Government, filed before the learned Single Judge nothing has been mentioned why original petitioner being elected member of the dissolved Market Committee, Bodeli should not be nominated member in the newly constituted Market Committee, Bodeli. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be modified to the extent directing the Stat Government to consider the case of the petitioner for nominated members in the newly constituted Market Committee, Bodeli. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.03.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No. 570 of 2017 quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is observed and held that the State Government was justified in issuing Notification dated 09.01.2017 in exercise of powers under Sections 52, 54(1) and 54(2) of the Act, 1963. However, while upholding the Notification dated 09.01.2017 the State Government is to be directed to consider the case of the original petitioner being elected member of the dissolved Market Committee, Bodeli to nominate him in the newly constituted market committee constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act and pass a speaking order, as the word used in sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Act as far as practicable. Therefore, while considering the case of the petitioner as above, and if State Government is of the opinion that for any valid reason it is not practicable to nominate the original petitioner in the newly constituted market committee constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 54, then a speaking and reasoned order may be passed. 11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeals are allowed. 11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.03.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No. 570 of 2017 quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 09.01.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the State Government is directed to consider the case of the original petitioner to nominate his name in the newly constituted market committee constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act, being elected member dissolved the Market Committee and if for any valid reason, the State Government is of the opinion that it is not practicable to nominate the original petitioner in the newly constituted Market Committees, in that case, speaking and reasoned order may be passed. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from today. While allowing the present appeals, the State Government is further directed to hold the election of the newly constituted Market Committees as early as possible but not later than 31.03.2018. Appeal allowed.