What legitimizes the Maoists in Nepal, now that the government has expired?

Question

According to this article in the Economist, Nepal's government has expired, and there isn't really a procedure in place to either call new elections or put in a new constitution.

In May an assembly elected in 2008 to write a new democratic constitution lapsed without completing its task. That plunged the country into renewed crisis. The interim constitution has no provision for holding fresh elections, nor for replacing the government. At the time Mr Bhattarai called for fresh elections to be held on November 22nd. But the opposition parties refused to co-operate over the electoral arrangements, and the president rejected two government ordinances on election rules. Politics is polarised. Mr Yadav believes that as the poll date passes the government will have no legitimacy, and so must go.

To critics of the Maoists, the party is undemocratic and threatening, responsible for sowing division in Nepali society. Mr Yadav is supposed to be neutral, but stands with these critics. Indeed supporters credit him with proving a more effective opposition than the weak and fractious Nepali Congress Party, to which he once belonged. The Maoists, who won the last election and have transformed themselves from a rural militia into a mainstream party, accuse critics of trying to thwart social changes that many voters demand.

... The president’s preferred solution is said to be to install a “neutral” government, possibly under the leadership of a former chief justice, to oversee elections. Mr Yadav appears to believe that such a move would be popular; and that the Maoists, who are committed to fresh elections, would have little choice but to go along.

... A precedent exists for Nepal’s precarious situation. In 2002 a prime minister failed to hold elections, causing the then ceremonial monarch to sack him. The king enjoyed brief and shallow public support. Four years and four royally appointed governments later, the monarchy was defeated by a mass street movement, ushering in a ceremonial presidency. Do not wish the chaos of the past decade on Nepal again

This article, however, is now over a month and a half old. What has happened in Nepal since then to legitimize the government?

Answer 1

...In May an assembly elected in 2008 to write a new democratic constitution lapsed without completing its task That plunged the country into renewed crisis. The interim constitution has no provision for holding fresh elections, nor for replacing the government. At the time Mr Bhattarai called for fresh elections to be held on November 22nd...

If the Nepal's Constitution does not consider this case and so It doesn't have any prevision for it, the constituted powers starting with the judicial (Supreme Court in some countries) should declare about the subject, and create or describe a provisional process to renew the executive power.

By the other hand Nepali people should not forget that in theory the sovereignty resides in the people, and all the powers (legislative, executive and judicial), the laws and even the constitution are submitted by this sovereignty, so if the previous assembly couldn't write a new constitution, then the people can establish (in different ways one is the democratic) a new assambly or renovate its members to write the new constitution.