D. D. SINHA, J. :- Heard Shri A.M. Ghare, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri N.W. Sambre, the learned GP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are Assistant Registrars, Co-operative Societies (at present discharging their duties as Administrators), Shri Subhash Paliwal, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 and Shri C. S. Kaptan, the learned Counsel for the caveator.

2. Rule, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Shri N.W. Sambre, the learned Government Pleader waives notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Shri Subhash Paliwal, the learned Counsel waives notice .on behalf of the respondent No.4 and Shri C. S. Kaptan, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the caveator.

3. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 22nd September, 2008 passed by the respondent NO.3-District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhandara under section 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 whereby APMC, Lakhni was divided into two APMCs i.e. APMC, Lakhni and APMC, Sakoli.

4. Shri A. M. Ghare, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 23-1-2001, the respondent No.3 issued notification under section 4 of the APMC Act whereby APMC of Lakhni is carved out and since then APMC Lakhni is in operation. On 28-12-2003, the term of the office of Board of Directors of APMC, Lakhni was expired. However, the respondent No. 1/State continued the said body by granting extension to the said Board from time to time on one reason or the other. On 8-4-2008, the Member of Legislative Assembly of the State of Maharashtra, Sakoli Constituency has given letter to the State Marketing Board for bifurcation of respondent No. 4-AMPC. On 17-62008, a meeting of the Executive Committee of the State Marketing Board was held and this aspect was discussed and it was noticed that there was no such proposal received by the Board regarding the bifurcation of the respondent No. 4 APMC. The office of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was requested to forward the proposal of bifurcation, if they so desire, to the office of the Board.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that on 22-7-2008, the respondent No.3 published election programme of APMC, Lakhni, and declared the election of the Board of Directors. Voting of the said election was scheduled on 21-9-2008. On 26-6-2008, the respondent No.2 informed the respondent No. 1/State that considering the income and expenditure of APMC, Lakhni, the proposal of bifurcation was neither feasible nor financially viable and election of the Board of Directors of AMPC, Lakhni be held.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that on 16-82008, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lakhni, submitted the report to the respondent No.3 and gave details about the sale and purchase and other financial aspects of APMC, Lakhni and also gave his opinion that the bifurcation of respondent No. 4-APMC was not financially viable. It is contended that on 28-8-2008, the respondent No. 3-DDR, Bhandara sent a communication whereby the respondent No.2 was informed that bifurcation of respondent No. 4 APMC, Lakhni was not financially viable. Similarly, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur, vide communication dated 26-8-2008 also informed respondent No.2 that bifurcation of respondent No. 4-APMC was not financially viable proposition.

7. Shri Ghare, the learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that on 28-8-2008, the Ex Chairman of respondent No. 4-APMC and one of the Ex Directors, namely, Shri Vasant Shivankar and Shri Jagannath Rahagadale respectively filed Writ Petition No. 3755 of 2008 before this Court, challenging the publication of election programme of Board of Directors of respondent No. 4 APMC and prayed for stay of the election programme and/for appointment of Administrator till