SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.

1. The Petitioners are voters of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Tal. Shirur, District Pune (for short “the Committee”). They have challenged the order dated 1st August, 2016 passed by the Respondent No. 1 State whereby the term of office of the members of the Committee has been extended by six months with effect from 6th September, 2016 to 5th March, 2017.

2. Briefly stated the Committee had submitted a letter dated 10th May, 2016 to the Director of Marketing, State of Maharashtra, Pune seeking extension of term of the office of the members of the Committee which was expiring on 5th September, 2016. In the application following reasons were stated to seek the extension of term by two years.

(i) There is severe drought situation in the entire state of Maharashtra.

(ii) There is an ongoing dispute with regard to the village Pimpale Jagtap which is pending in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.

(iii) The Market Committee of the Respondent No. 2 Committee have carried out their duties efficiently and in an appropriate manner in the last 4 years.

(iv) The Respondent No. 2 Committee is endeavoring to initiate onion and Pomogranate markets in the main market Committee area.

(v) There are ongoing elections of Vividh Karyakari Sewa So-Operative Societies in Shirur Taluka, District Pune. As a result the members of the said societies would remain absent from voting in the elections of the Market Committee of the Petitioner No. 1 Committee.

3. The said application was considered by the State Government by the impugned order and the term of the office of the members of the Committee was extended by six months by directing that during the extended period, the Committee shall hold the election of the Marketing Committee. Since there was a typographical error in the order dated 1st August, 2016, a Corrigendum was issued on 17th September, 2016.

4. The case of the Petitioners is that the Committee had failed to make out that there exists reasons beyond its control for not holding the elections before the expiry of the term of the office of its members. It is also the case of the Petitioners that the State Government has mechanically extended the term without recording the finding that there exits reasons for not holding elections before the expiry of the term of the office of the members which are beyond the control of the Committee. The Petitioner's further case is that their right to have a democratically elected Committee has been affected by the State without there being any justified reason for the same as the impugned order has been passed when there was no fulfillment of the requirement of the second proviso to Section 14(3) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short “the Act”).

5. On the other hand, the Respondent-State and Respondent No. 2 Committee have supported the impugned order. It is stated by them that the reasons mentioned by the Committee in the application and the reasons assigned by the State in the impugned order justifies the extension of the term and the reasons falls under the category of second proviso of Section 14(3) of the Act. It is further stated that the State Government after having subjective satisfaction of the reasons stated in the application dated 10th May, 2016 has recorded the finding that it would be justified to extend the term of the office of the Committee by six months, which needs no interference in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The question involved in the Petition is as to whether the State Government has correctly exercised the powers vested in it under second proviso to Section 14 (3) of the Act. For ready reference Section 14(3) is extracted below:

Section 14 : Election and terms of office of members:

Section 14 (1) : …........

Section 14(2) : …......... (Not relevant)

Section 14(3) : Except as otherwise provided i