JUDGMENT & ORDER : Vipul M. Pancholi, J. 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Appellant Original petitioner under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 27.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.14910 of 2016 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1 The petitioner is the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Deodar constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 ("the Act" for short) and which is constituted for the purpose of regulating the purchase and sale of agricultural produce in Deodar Taluka of Banaskantha District. Initially, there was a joint APMC for Bhabhar and Deodar wherein, Deodar was a part of Bhabhar revenue Taluka. On bifurcation of Bhabhar and Deodar Talukas under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, APMC Bhabhar and APMC Deodar were constituted. However, the said Notification issued on 28.03.2003 could not be implemented as stay was granted by this Court. When the stay was vacated, by Notification dated 10.10.2006, the aforesaid two different Market Committees were constituted. 2.2 It is stated that the petitioner APMC has a principal market yard at Deodar and sub-yard at Paldi. The last election of the Market Committee was held on 10.04.2015. It is alleged that the State authorities were not declaring the results for the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman and, therefore, the petition came to be filed before this Court. The said petition came to be withdrawn. Thereafter, the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman was held on 21.05.2015. It is further alleged that the party in power could not succeed in the election and, therefore, by misusing the statutory powers, the Management of the Market Committee is sought to be taken away. It is further alleged that representations were made by the office bearers of a particular political party to the concerned Minister. It is stated that on the basis of the representations, the State Government issued the Notification on 09.09.2013 whereby, four Talukas of Banaskantha District were divided and thereby new Taluka, namely, Lakhni Taluka was formed by taking some Villages from Deesa, Tharad and Deodar Talukas. Thereafter, on bifurcation of the revenue areas of the Talukas, APMC Lakhni was constituted by bifurcating APMC Deesa into APMC Deodar and APMC Lakhni by issuing Notification on 15.04.2015. Thereafter, on bifurcation of the revenue areas of the Talukas, APMC Lakhni was constituted by bifurcating APMC Deesa into APMC Deodar and APMC Lakhni by issuing Notification on 15.04.2015. 3. It Is The Case Of The Petitioner That So Far As APMC Lakhni is concerned, the nominated body has been appointed by Notification dated 16.07.2016. However, the impugned Notification came to be issued on 03.08.2016 whereby, seven Villages from market area of APMC Deodar are excluded and the same are included in APMC Lakhni. It is alleged that the aforesaid Notification is issued only with a view to see that the elected body of APMC Deodar is dissolved. The petitioner, therefore, filed he captioned petition which the petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 03.08.2016 issued by the State Government and also prayed that the respondent authorities be restrained from dissolving the petitioner Market Committee. However, during the pendency of the said petition, respondent No.2 issued the final Notification dated 15.10.2016 under Section 6(5) of the Act and, therefore, by way of an amendment, the petitioner also prayed for quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 15.10.2016. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition. Therefore, the present appeal is filed. 4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi assisted by learned advocate Mr.Dipen Desai for the appellant-original petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General Mr.Prakash Jani assisted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.D.M. Devnani and learned advocate Mr.V.C. Vaghela for respondent Nos.4 to 6. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner APMC was constituted on bifurcation of APMC Bhabhar and APMC Deodar. Thereafter, the election of the petitioner APMC was held on 10.04.2015 wherein, the panel which is opposed to the party in power has succeeded. It is submitted that Notification dated 09.09.2013 was issued by the State Government whereby, new Lakhni Taluka was formed by taking some of the Villages from Deesa, Tharad and Deodar Talukas. On bifurcation of the revenue areas of three different Talukas, APMC Lakhni was constituted. Thus, APMC Lakhni is already constituted and a nominated body has already been appointed. However, on the basis of the representation made by the leaders of a particular political party, the impugned Notification dated 03.08.2016 came to be issued by which seven Villages are excluded from the petitioner and the same are included in APMC Lakhni. Thus, APMC Lakhni is already constituted and a nominated body has already been appointed. However, on the basis of the representation made by the leaders of a particular political party, the impugned Notification dated 03.08.2016 came to be issued by which seven Villages are excluded from the petitioner and the same are included in APMC Lakhni. It is submitted that the said Notification is issued with a view to see that the petitioner APMC is dissolved and elected body is ousted. 5.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi further submitted that the impugned Notifications were issued with the sole intention to dissolve the petitioner APMC. It is pointed out that the State government had issued Notification dated 09.09.2013 by which the revenue limits of Lakhni Taluka was already altered by inducting seven Villages from Deodar Taluka. However, between 09.09.2013 till April, 2015, no action for bifurcation was taken and, thereafter, the election of the petitioner APMC was held in April 2015. It is alleged that when the party in power has failed to get majority in the petitioner APMC, now the decision is taken to exclude seven Villages from the petitioner APMC and the said Villages are sought to be included in APMC Lakhni. 5.2 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi referred to the provisions of Sections 5, 6, 52, 53 and 54 of the Act and submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that exclusion of some area or villages from one market area and inclusion of that area in another market area does not lead to the consequence of dissolution of the Market Committee and the Market Committee cannot be dissolved as a consequence of invocation of powers under Section 6(5) of the Act. It is submitted that the powers of bifurcation under Section 52 read with Section 54 are different than the powers of exclusion of some market area from one Market Committee and inclusion in another market area, as contemplated under Section 6(5) of the Act. 5.3 At this stage, it is submitted that the powers of dissolution can be invoked only where on account of alteration of the market area, the Market Committee is constituted for each of the market area formed on account of such alteration. 5.3 At this stage, it is submitted that the powers of dissolution can be invoked only where on account of alteration of the market area, the Market Committee is constituted for each of the market area formed on account of such alteration. In the present case, on account of exclusion of seven villages from market area of the petitioner APMC, a separate Market Committee is not constituted for the said seven villages but, the said seven villages are included in the market area of the already constituted APMC Lakhni. Thus, Section 54 of the Act and its consequences would not be attracted in the present case. However, the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the aforesaid important aspects. 5.4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi thereafter submitted that APMC Tharad, which is similarly situated, is not dissolved or no action under Section 6(5) of the Act are taken in spite of the specific statement made by respondent No.2 before the learned Single Judge whereas, the elected body of the petitioner APMC is sought to be removed, which clearly shows political malafides. He referred to the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in Paragraphs5.7 and 5.8 of the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed error in observing in Paragraph5.7 that "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 be 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". It is submitted that such finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is not as per he Scheme of the Act. 5.5 Alternatively, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi submitted that the word 'may' used in Section 54 of the Act indicates that the State Government is vested with discretionary powers to dissolve the Market Committee under certain circumstances and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in Paragraphs5.7 and 5.8 of the judgment is contrary to the language used in Section 54 of the Act. He referred to the provisions contained in Sections 3A(3) and 3A(5) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, Sections 262 to 264 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and Section 266 of the Gujarat Municipality Act and compared the said provisions with the relevant provisions of the Act. 5.6 In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi placed reliance upon the following decisions: (a) State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471 (b) Ram Pyare Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 1 SCC 671 (c) Likhi Group Gram Panchayat v. State of Gujarat and others, (2000) 1 GLH 367 (d) Vithalbhai Hansrajbhai Radadiya and others v. State of Gujarat and others, (2006) 4 GLR 2747 (e) Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad, (2012) 4 SCC 407 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General Mr.Prakash Jani supported the reasonings recorded by the learned Single Judge and he has given a brief history of the bifurcation of APMC Bhabhar. It is submitted that on 10.10.2006, APMC Bhabhar was bifurcated into two Market Committees, namely, APMC Bhabhar and APMC Deodar. Thereafter, on 09.09.2013, the State Government, while exercising powers under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, created new Talukas out of the existing Talukas of Banaskantha District. As per the said Notification, Deesa Taluka has 107 villages, Deodar has 65 villages, Tharad has 23 villages and Lakhni has 53 villages. It is pointed out that so far as 53 villages of Lakhni Taluka are concerned, 35 villages came to be included in the newly created Lakhni Taluka out of Deesa Taluka, 07 villages from Deodar Taluka and 11 villages from Tharad Taluka. It is further submitted that there was already existing APMC in Deesa, Deodar and Tharad Talukas. Thus, for revenue Taluka of Deesa, Deodar and Tharad Talukas, APMC for each of the Talukas was already in existence. Therefore, for newly created revenue Taluka of Lakhni, APMC was required to be constituted. Therefore, APMC Deesa came to be bifurcated into two different Market Committees, namely, APMC Deesa for Deesa Taluka and APMC Lakhni for Lakhni Taluka. Thus, APMC Lakhni came into existence from 15.04.2015 with 46 villages. However, 07 villages of Lakhni Taluka continued to be part of the market area of APMC Deodar. Therefore, APMC Deesa came to be bifurcated into two different Market Committees, namely, APMC Deesa for Deesa Taluka and APMC Lakhni for Lakhni Taluka. Thus, APMC Lakhni came into existence from 15.04.2015 with 46 villages. However, 07 villages of Lakhni Taluka continued to be part of the market area of APMC Deodar. It is submitted that the respondent director had not undertaken the exercise of transfer of 07 villages of Lakhni Taluka from APMC Deodar and, therefore, though the 07 villages were part of the revenue Taluka Lakhni, they continued to be part of the petitioner APMC. 6.1 In the aforesaid background, it is pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General that the impugned Notification dated 03.08.2016 came to be issued under section 5(1) of the Act whereby, it was decided to include 07 villages into the market area of APMC Lakhni. The respondent Director, therefore, invited suggestions and objections from the public at large by publishing advertisement in the newspaper. The Director received 32 representations. Out of the 32 representations, 31 supported the inclusion of these villages into the market area of APMC Lakhni. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner APMC did not submit any objection. 6.2 It is thereafter contended that the respondent Director considered the suggestions and objections and, thereafter, issued the Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act including 07 villages into the market area of APMC Lakhni and excluding the said villages from the market area of the petitioner APMC. It is submitted that the respondent State has not passed any order under Section 54 of the Act for dissolution of the petitioner APMC. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the decision of the State Government as they have never been aggrieved by the decision of the State Government as they have not made any representation/objection before the concerned authority. It is further submitted that the policy of the State Government is to have all villages of one Taluka into the same APMC and, therefore, consistent with the same, 07 villages which are in the revenue Taluka of Lakhni were required to be brought into the market area of APMC Lakhni. Thus, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the respondent Director while issuing Notification under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. Thus, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the respondent Director while issuing Notification under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. He denied the allegation made by the petitioner with regard to malafide exercise of powers. It is contended that the Notification dated 03.12.2015 came to be issued by the respondent authorities and now the steps are taken in pursuance of the issuance of the said Notification. Therefore, it cannot be said that the issuance of Notification is malafide exercise of powers. 6.3 Learned Additional Advocate General has referred to Section 2(xiii) (a), 2(xiii) and 2(xiv), 5, 6, 11, 52 to 54 of the Act. He placed reliance upon the following decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court: (a) Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad and another v. State of Bombay, (1962) AIR (Supreme Court) 97 (b) Jan Mohammad Noor Mohamad Bagban v. State of Gujarat and another, (1966) AIR (Supreme Court) 385 (c) Govind Lal Chhagan Lal Patel v. APMC and others, (1976) AIR (Supreme Court) 263 (d) Bhubaneswar Development Authority and another v. Adikanda Biswal and others, (2012) 11 SCC 731 (e) Govt. of Bihar and others v. Dayanand Singh, (2016) AIR(Supreme Court) 4828 7. Learned Advocate Mr.V.C. Vaghela For Respondent Nos.4 to 6 adopted the submissions canvassed by the learned Additional Advocate General and also supported the reasonings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition. He urged that there is no merit in the appeal and hence, the same be dismissed. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it emerged that on 10.10.2006, APMC Bhabhar was bifurcated into two Market Committees, namely, APMC Bhabhar and APMC Deodar. Thereafter, on 09.09.2013, the State Government, while exercising powers under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, created new Talukas out of the existing Talukas of Banaskantha District. It is reported that so far as 53 villages of Lakhni Talukas are concerned, 35 villages came to be included in the newly created Lakhni Taluka out of Deesa Taluka, 07 villages from Deodar Taluka and 11 villages from Tharad Taluka. There was already existing APMC in Deesa, Deodar and Tharad Talukas. Thus, for revenue Talukas of Deesa, Deodar and Tharad Talukas, APMC for each of the Talukas was already in existence. There was already existing APMC in Deesa, Deodar and Tharad Talukas. Thus, for revenue Talukas of Deesa, Deodar and Tharad Talukas, APMC for each of the Talukas was already in existence. Thus, for newly created revenue Taluka of Lakhni, APMC was required to be constituted. Hence, APMC Deesa came to be bifurcated into two different Market Committees, namely, APMC Deesa for Deesa Taluka and APMC Lakhni for Lakhni Taluka. Thus, APMC Lakhni came into existence on 15.04.2015 with 46 villages. However, 07 villages of Lakhni Taluka continued to be part of the market area of APMC Deodar i.e. the petitioner APMC. At the relevant time, the respondent director had not undertaken the exercise of transfer of 07 villages of Lakhni Taluka from APMC Deodar and, therefore, though 07 villages were part of the revenue Taluka Lakhni, they continued to be part of the petitioner APMC. 9. It is further revealed that the impugned Notification dated 03.08.2016 came to be issued under Section 5(1) of the Act whereby, it was decided to include 07 villages into the market area of APMC Lakhni. The respondent Director, therefore, invited suggestions and objections from the public at large by publishing advertisement in the newspaper. It is reported that in pursuance to the said advertisement, the respondent Director received 32 representations, out of which, 31 supported the inclusion of these villages into the market area of APMC Lakhni. It is not in dispute that the petitioner APMC did not submit any objection. Thereafter, the respondent Director issued Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act including 07 villages into the market area of APMC Lakhni and excluding the said villages from the market area of the petitioner APMC. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued final Notification dated 15.10.2016 issued under Section 6(5) of the Act and, therefore, the petitioner challenged the said notification also by way of an amendment. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the respondent State has yet not passed any order under Section 54 of the Act for dissolution of the petitioner APMC. Learned Additional Advocate General has referred the Policy of the State Government to have all villages of one Taluka into the same APMC and, therefore, consistent with the said Policy, 07 villages which are in the revenue Taluka of Lakhni were required to be brought into the market area of APMC Lakhni. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General has referred the Policy of the State Government to have all villages of one Taluka into the same APMC and, therefore, consistent with the said Policy, 07 villages which are in the revenue Taluka of Lakhni were required to be brought into the market area of APMC Lakhni. 10. In The Aforesaid Facts, At This Stage, We Would like to refer the relevant provisions of the Act for determining the issue involved in the present appeal. 11. Section 2(xiia) of the Act defines the word 'market'. It provides as under: "2(xiia) "market" means a market established and regulated under this Act for the notified market area and also includes a market proper, a principal market yard, submarket yard, private market, e-market and such other markets as may be declared under this Act;" 12. Section 2 (Xiii) Of the Act Provides As Under: "2(xiii) "market area" means any area declared or deemed to be declared to be a market area under this Act" 13. Section 2(Xiv) Of The Act Provides As Under: "2(xiv) "market committee" means a market committee established or deemed to be established under this Act" 14. Section 5 Of The Act Provides As Under: "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 suggestion 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 authorities functioning in the area specified in the notification with a request to submit its objections and suggestions, if any, in writing to the Director within the period specified in the notification." 15. Section 6 Of The Act Provides As Under: "6. Declaration of market areas. Section 6 Of The Act Provides 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 subsection] 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 for the time being in force, from the date on which any area is declared to be a market area under subsection (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 subsection (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). (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 subsection (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 subsection shall also be published in Gujarati in a newspaper having circulation in the said area and in such other manner, as may be prescribed.]" 16. Section 52 Of The Act Provides As Under: "52. Power to de-notify 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." 17. Section 53 Of The Act Provides As Under: "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, 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 subsection (1) or (2) ." 18. Section 54 Of The Act Provides As Under: "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 subsection (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 subsection (3), the market committee shall be reconstituted in the manner provided in section 11." 19. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions would indicate that after any area is already declared as a market area under subsection (1) of Section 6 of the Act, such area may be de-notified under Section 52 and the market area would cease to be such area. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions would indicate that after any area is already declared as a market area under subsection (1) of Section 6 of the Act, such area may be de-notified under Section 52 and the market area would cease to be such area. Similarly, under subsection (5) of Section 6, an area may be excluded from out of an existing market area declared under subsection (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 subsection (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, however, discretion is given to the State Government to dissolve such market committee or not. 20. Learned counsel Mr.Joshi has placed reliance upon the decision rendered in the case of Likhi Group Gram Panchayat V. State of Gujarat, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has interpreted the provisions contained in Section 298 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961 as well as Section 310 of the said Act. 21. In The Case Of Ram Pyare Chaudhary Vs. 21. In The Case Of Ram Pyare Chaudhary Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that the elections to panchayats, cooperative societies and smaller local bodies provide an apotheosis or a training ground for success of our larger experiment of parliamentary democracy. Election process is sacrosanct. Members elected must be permitted to discharge their functions as chosen representatives of the electorate for the statutory terms. Such a drastic power of removing elected representatives before the expiry of term and substituting non-elected persons must receive strict and narrow interpretation at the hands of the Courts. We cannot dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. However, in the facts of the present case, the decision would not render any assistance to the appellant petitioner as the respondent State has not dissolved the petitioner APMC. 22. Similarly In The Case Of Vithalbhai Hansrajbhai Radadiya and others v. State of Gujarat and others, the learned Single Judge of this Court has in Paragraphs21 and 22 observed that the Court in the system of democracy would be zealous to see that the democratic principles are upheld and the powers are to remain with those who are genuinely entitled to hold due to the mandate of electorate concerned. It was further observed that if exercise of power under Section 52 read with Section 54(2) of the Act is to achieve goal of removal of elected representatives belonging to another or rival political parties or group or to induct the persons who are comfortable or convenient to the persons exercising such powers, then such an action prima-facie can be said as outside the scope and ambit of powers of the State Government under Section 52 read with Section 54(2) of the Act. However, this judgment would also not render any assistance to the petitioner as in the present case, the respondent State has not exercised the powers set out under Section 54(2) of the Act. 23. In The Case Of State Of Punjab Vs. Gurdial Singh, the Honourable Supreme Court has, in Paragraph9 of the judgment, considered what is malafides in the jurisprudence of power. 23. In The Case Of State Of Punjab Vs. Gurdial Singh, the Honourable Supreme Court has, in Paragraph9 of the judgment, considered what is malafides in the jurisprudence of power. The Honourable Supreme Court observed that when the custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested, the Court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion. Here also, we cannot dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. However, in the present case, as discussed hereinabove, respondent No.2 Director issued Notification under Section 5(1) of the Act on 03.08.2016, whereby it was decided to include 07 villages into the market area of APMC Lakhni and, thereafter, objections and suggestions were invited. After considering the same, Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act including 07 villages into the market area of APMC Lakhni and excluding the said villages from the market area of the petitioner APMC, was issued. It is required to be noted that the Notification the Gujarat Land Revenue Code came to be issued whereby new Talukas out of existing Talukas of Banaskantha District were created. 07 Villages came to newly created revenue Taluka Lakhni from Deodar Taluka. However, while creating and constituting the APMC Lakhni, such 07 villages were not included in APMC Lakhni. Now, by exercising powers under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, such 07 villages are included in APMC Lakhni. Thus, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 has exercised such powers with malafide intention as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to point out such allegation by placing cogent material on record. 24. In The Case Of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that in a democratic institution, the incumbent is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his election is set aside by a prescribed procedure known to law or he is removed by the procedure established under law. The removal of elected official has serious repercussions as he is removed from the post and declared disqualified to contest the elections for a further stipulated period. Right to hold such a post is statutory but he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to the provisions provided by the legislature for his removal. The removal of elected official has serious repercussions as he is removed from the post and declared disqualified to contest the elections for a further stipulated period. Right to hold such a post is statutory but he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to the provisions provided by the legislature for his removal. This decision would also not render any assistance to the appellant petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 25. In The Case Of Ramansinh Narsinh Rathod And Ors. v. State of Gujarat, the Division Bench of this Honourable Court, in Paragraph11.1, observed as under: "11.1 Reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the provision for constituting committees under section 54(2) of the Act is intended only in cases where market committee is dissolved and such area is constituted into market committees on alteration of limits, during the term of the market committee. A composite reading of subsections (1) and (2) of section 54 of the Act makes it clear that in the event of dissolution of the Committee on such alteration of limits of market area, the persons who are in the elected committee, as far as practicable be appointed in the newly constituted committee. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that if market committee is dissolved on account of alteration of limits of market committee, new market committee is to be constituted by including the persons who are members of the dissolved market committee as far as practicable. In the case on hand, it is clear that the final notification for dissolution is issued after expiry of the elected term of the appellants herein." 26. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Valjibhai Janabhai Bariya and others v. Thakore Yashpalsinh Govindsinh and others rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.917 of 2017 and allied matters, wherein it was observed in Paragraphs7.3 and 7.4 as under: "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. 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 subsection (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. Subs-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. Therefore, considering subsection (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. 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 subsection (1) and (2) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963. 7.4. Once the new Market Committee is constituted under the provisions of subsection (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. 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. 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 subsection (1) of Section 54 of the Act, 1963. Once the new market committees are constituted by the State Government in exercise of power under subsection (1) of Section 54, subsection (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 subsection (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." 27. In The Case Of Bhubaneswar Development Authority and another v. Adikanda Biswal and others, the Honourable Supreme Court considered the scope of judicial review while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and observed and held in Paragraph19 as under: "19. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in sitting in appeal over the decision taken by the statutory authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. It is trite law that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. The judicial review is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made and the Court sits in judgment only on the correctness of the decision making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself. The Court confines itself to the question of legality and is concerned only with, whether the decision making authority exceeded its power, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached an unreasonable decision or abused its powers." 28. Similarly, In The Case Of Govt. of Bihar and others v. Dayanand Singh, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph8 as under: "8. Apart from that, the High Court made various other observations in the judgment regarding the manner in which the amendments were made and the desirability of such amendments. Such observations, in our opinion, are not warranted in the context of the issue before Court. The High Court ought to have kept in mind that it was the legislative decision of the State which was the subject-matter of dispute before it, while the High Court undoubtedly has the jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of the 'law' the motives behind the law and the wisdom of the legislative body are not amenable to the judicial review." 29. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid provisions of law as well as the decisions upon which the reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, if the facts and circumstances of the present case are examined, we are of the view that in the present case, on 09.09.2013, the State Government while exercising powers under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code created new Talukas out of existing Talukas of the Banaskantha District and as per the said Notification, so far as 53 villages of Lakhni Taluka are concerned, 35 villages came to be included in the newly created Lakhni Taluka out of Deesa Taluka, 07 villages from Deodar Taluka and 11 villages from Tharad Taluka. It is required to be noted that there was already existing APMC in Deesa, Deodar and Tharad Talukas. It is required to be noted that there was already existing APMC in Deesa, Deodar and Tharad Talukas. Thus, for the revenue Talukas of Deesa, Deodar and Tharad Talukas, APMC for each of the Talukas was already in existence. Hence, for newly created revenue Taluka of Lakhni, APMC was required to be constituted. Therefore, APMC Deesa came to be bifurcated in two different Market Committees i.e. APMC Deesa for Deesa Taluka and APMC Lakhni for Lakhni Taluka. Thus, APMC Lakhni came into existence from 15.04.2015 with 46 villages. However, at this stage, it is further required to be noted that 07 villages of Lakhni Taluka continued to be part of market area of APMC Deodar i.e. the petitioner APMC. At the relevant time, the respondent Director had not undertaken the exercise to include the said 07 villages of Lakhni Taluka from APMC Deodar and, therefore, though 07 villages were part of the revenue Taluka Lakhni, they continued to be the part of the petitioner APMC. Thereafter, the respondent Director thought it fit to issue Notification under Section 5(1) of the Act on 03.08.2016 whereby, it was decided to include 07 villages into the market area of APMC Lakhni and after following the procedure contemplated under the Act, Notification under Section 6 was also issued including 07 villages into the market area of APMC Lakhni and excluding the said villages from the market area of the petitioner APMC, as per the Policy of the State Government. 30. Learned Additional Advocate General Is Right In submitting that till date, the respondent State has not exercised the powers under Section 54 of the Act by dissolving the petitioner APMC. Thus, we are of the view that the petition was filed on the basis of the apprehension that the petitioner APMC would be dissolved by the State Government while exercising powers under Section 54 of the Act. 31. We See No Reason to Interfere With The Impugned Notifications issued by the respondent authorities. Thus, we are of the view that the petition was filed on the basis of the apprehension that the petitioner APMC would be dissolved by the State Government while exercising powers under Section 54 of the Act. 31. We See No Reason to Interfere With The Impugned Notifications issued by the respondent authorities. It is required to be noted that Section 54(1) of the Act mandates 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, by order in writing, dissolve the market committee and direct that the market committee be constituted for each market area as formed on account of such alteration. Thus, the discretion is with the State Government to dissolve the market committee under the aforesaid situation. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph5.7 that provision of Section 54 of the Act 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 and in such eventuality of alteration or division, the powers which would exercisable as a necessary consequence of alteration or division of limits, would be of dissolution of the market committee, is not correct. We clarify that discretionary powers are with the State Government for the dissolution of the Market Committee in case of alteration of limits of Market Committee. It is required to be noted that till date, the respondent State has not exercised the powers under Section 54 of the Act for dissolution of the petitioner APMC and, therefore, it appears that the petitioner has filed the petition on the basis of the apprehension. 32. In View Of The Aforesaid Discussion, The Order passed by the learned Single Judge is confirmed with aforesaid clarification. No interference is required in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Consequently, Civil Application also stands disposed of.