-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Application No. 2201 of 2009 IN Writ Petition No. 7333 of 2009 Vilas Mohanraro Deore & Ors. ..Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Sanjeev Kadam a/w P. D. Jadhav for the Applicants. Mr. Anil Patil a/w Smt. Rutuja Ambekar for the Respondent no.6 – original Petitioner. Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent nos. 1 ,3 & 5 – State. Coram : S. B. Mhase & R. M. Savant, JJ. Date : September 18, 2009. P. C. : 1. Heard. Writ Petition No. 7333 of 2009 was filed by the Respondent No.6 in the present civil application. The said petition was filed by the Respondent no.6 with an apprehension that the proposal of bifurcation of the Malegaon Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), Malegaon will be accepted by the State Authorities and thereby his rights will be affected and therefore he -: 2 :- had filed the said petition. 2. We noticed that the State Authorities have not passed any order of bifurcation and therefore we were of the opinion that all the grounds which are raised by the original petitioner, who is Respondent No.6 in the present application can be agitated before the State Authorities. Therefore, we refrained ourselves from entertaining the petition. We also protected the Petitioner by observing that in case any adverse order is passed against him, the said order shall not be executed for a period of four weeks from the date of service of the said notice on the Petitioner. This order was passed on 26th August 2009. 3. However, we are today informed that on the same day, i.e., on 26th August 2009 the State Authorities have passed the order effecting bifurcation of the Malegaon APMC. Since the order was passed on the same day, as per our directions given in the said Writ Petition, the Petitioner could not get an opportunity to agitate the points raised in the said petition before the State Authorities. However since there was a protection granted in favour of the Petitioner, the said order dated 26th August 2009 bifurcating the Malegaon APMC was not -: 3 :- executed. 4. Mr. Anil Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original Petitioner states that the order dated 26th August 2009 passed by the State Authorities bifurcating the Malegaon AMPC has been challenged by the the Malegaon AMPC. The said petition is yet to be listed for admission. 5. Under these circumstances the applicants who are the agriculturists and traders carrying on the business at Umrane, APMC, which is declared as AMPC under the order dated 26th August 2009 passed by the State Authorities, have filed the present application. They seek modification of the order dated 26th August 2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7333 of 2009 and thereby they are interested in vacating the interim protection order granted in favour of the Petitioner. They are seeking modification in the order so that the Umrane AMPC should become functional. 6. The first thing which requires consideration is that the present applicants are not the office bearers of the nominated board of the Umrane APMC which is newly constituted. The Applicant no.1 is an -: 4 :- agriculturist and the Applicant no.2 is a trader. Therefore their rights are not affected by the impugned order. Apart from that the order bifurcating the Malegaon AMPC is under challenge before this Court by way of a separate petition, therefore the Applicants, if so desire, can intervene in the said petition, subject to the approval granted by the Bench which will be considering the Petition. We find that so far as the modification of the order which has been sought before this Court by the present application is concerned, it is absolutely without any merit. Therefore, the application for modification of the said order dated 26th August 2009 is hereby rejected. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)