Wakfs Board for Punjab and Others vs The State of Punjab and Others

R.S. Narula, J.—By notification dated September 29, 1960 u/s 9(1) read with section 11 of the Wakf Act, 29 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'' the Punjab Government established the Wakf Board for Punjab with effect from 2nd of October, 1960, consisting of 11 members including Ch. Mohammed Ashraf Khan and others through whom the Board has filed this writ petition. Section 9 provides that the petitioner Board is to be a statutory body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue and be sued in its corporate name. Section 10 of the Act, which prescribes the number of members of a State Board further provides that the Board shall have a Chairman who shall be elected by the members from amongst themselves u/s 11 of the Act, all the members of the Board have to be appointed by the State Government by notification in the official gazette from amongst various categories mentioned in that section. Section 12 fixes the term of office of the members of the Board at five years It further states that notwithstanding the expiration of his term of office, a member shall continue to hold office until the appointment of a successor is notified in the official gazette. The functions of the Board are detailed in section 15 of the Act. The general superintendence of all wakfs in the State of Punjab vested in the petitioner Board under that section. It is the Board which has to exercise its powers under the Act to ensure that the wakfs under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered and the income thereof is duly applied to the objects and for the purposes for which such wakfs have been created or were intended to be created. The Board has to give directions for the administration of the wakfs and to settle schemes for their management and to do various other acts in respect thereof, a long illustrative list of which is given in sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act. The State Government has u/s 18 of the Act reserved to itself the power to remove the chairman or any member of the Wakfs Board by notification in the official gazette in certain contingencies. I need not go into the details of the reasons for which a chairman or a member of the Wakfs Board can be removed as it is nobody''s case that any member of the petitioner-Board is sought to be removed in the instant case. Section 22 of the Act empowers the Board to delegate by a general or special order in writing to the Chairman or to any other member or Secretary of the Board or to any of its other officers or servants, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified by the Board in its said order, such of the powers and duties of the Board under the Act as the Board may deem necessary. u/s 62 of the Act the Central Government may call for any report or information from the Government of any State with respect to the functioning of the State Board and the Central Government may after considering such report or information issue such directions on questions of policy to be followed by the Board as it may think fit. Sub-section (2) of that section provides that the Board shall be guided by the directions given by the Central Government referred to above. Section 67 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act.

Section 64 of the Act the provisions of which are directly involved in this case, is in the following words:-

Power to supersede the Board.

(1) If the State Government is of opinion that the Board is unable to perform, or has persistently made default in the performance of, the duty Imposed on It by or under this Act or has exceeded or abused its powers, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, supersede the Board for such period as may be specified in the notification : Provided that before issuing a notification under this sub-section the State Government shall give a reasonable time to the Board to show cause why it should not be superseded and shall consider the explanations and objections, if any, of the Board.

(2) Upon the publication of a notification under sub-section (1) superseding the Board, -

(a) all the members of the Board shall, as from the date of supersession, vacate their offices as such members;

(b) all the powers and duties which may, by. or under the provisions of this Act, be exercised or performed by or on behalf of the Board Shall, during the period of supersession, be exercised and performed by such person or persons as the State Government may direct; and

(c) all property vested in the Board shall, during the period of supersession, vest in the State Government.

(3) On the expiration of the period of supersession specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1), the State Government may-

(a) extend the period of supersession for such further period as it may consider necessary; or

(b) reconstitute the Board in the manner provided in section 10 and section 11",

There is no doubt that the above said provision of law authorised the State Government to supersede the Wakfs Board for such period as may be specified in the Government notification But the authority or jurisdiction to do so is circumscribed by the provisions of that, section. The condition precedent. to the suppression of a Board u/s 64(1) of the Act are these :-

(i) Whenever the State Government is of the view that a Wakfs Board may be superseded the Government must first give reasonable time to the Board to show cause against the intended action.

(ii) After the service of the show-cause notice the Wakfs Board has to be given adequate opportunity to submit its explanations and to file objections if any, against the intended action of supersession sought to be taken by the authorities.

(iii) The State Government must then consider the explanations and objections submitted by the Board.

(iv) If on a consideration of the allegations against the Board and the explanations and objections submitted by it the State Government is of the opinion,-

(a) that the Board is unable to perform its duty under the Act; or

(b) that the Board has persistently made default in the performance of its duties imposed by the Act; or

(c) that the Board has exceeded or abused its powers, If and when the above-said procedure is adopted and the Government is of the opinion as indicated above it is then authorised to issue a notification under sub-section (1) of section 64 superseding the Board for such period as may be specified in the notification. On me publication of the above-said notification all the members of the Board are deemed to have automatically vacated as such members with effect from the date of the supersession and all the powers and duties of the Board have to be exercised and performed by such person or persons during the period of supersession as may be directed by the State Government. On the expiration of the period of supersession, the State Government is authorised to reconstitute the Board in the manner provided in sections 10 and 11 of the Act

It is the case of the petitioners that in September 1963 they came to know of some impending action against the petitioner-Board and that therefore six of the members of the Board waited upon and saw Shri Partap Singh Kairon, the then Chief Minister of the State of Punjab on or about 19th September 1963. After hearing the deputationist on behalf of the Board the Chief Minister sent a D.O. letter dated 20th September, 1963 (copy annexure D to the writ petition ) to Shri Hamayun Kabir, the then Union Minister of Scientific Research and Cultural Affairs, New Delhi informing him of the approach made to the chief Minister not to supersede the Board. In that letter the Chief Minister stated that those members had promised to approach the Central Minister to explain their view point to him as they thought that there was some misunderstanding and that the members ware anxious to serve the Wakf in the right spirit. The Chief Minister also mentioned in the said letter his having been approached on behalf of the members of the Board by certain friends and legislators and even by the Chief Parliamentary Secretary. According to the petitioners the above-said communication of the Chief Minister amounted to his having been satisfied about there being no need to supersede the petitioner-Board and that it was merely by chance or by a routine error that a show cause notice u/s 64(1) of the Act was still issued to the petitioner Board on 26th September, 1963. The respondents have not however, admitted this position. According to the respondents the Chief Minister had never directed the dropping of the proceedings but had merely forwarded the request of the members of the Board who saw him to the Central Minister and that the show-cause notice was, not issued by a mistake or error but was in fact issued on a due consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case. The copy of show-cause been filed as annexure ''B'' to the writ petition. None of the charges in the show-cause notice appears to involve any moral turpitude on the of any of the petitioners and no personal stigma of any type was cast against any member of the Board. Most of the allegation related to the Board not having drawn up a proper procedure well within time resulting in the Central Government having got to lay down the said procedure the Board not having taken proper action against the mutawallis or the agents of the Board, the Board not having taken proper action against unauthorised occupation of the wakf properties and not having prepared proper annual accounts of its income and expenditure item No. 7 in the show-cause notice related to alleged acute dissensions amongst the members of the Board" ''which according to the said notice had "made it impossible for the Board to function properly and to discharge its responsibilities satisfactorily. There were allegations of some imprudent not dishonest, items of expenditure incurred by the machinery concerned with the management of the wakf property.

The petitioner Board submitted a detailed explained in writing dated 14th October, 1963 in reply to the show-cause notice. Copy of the same is annxures ''C'' to the writ petition. Detailed explanations to the various items in the show-cause notice were given by the petitioner Board therein. Under the guidance of the Central Minister a meeting of the Board and of the State authorities was Held on November 23, 1963 in which Shri Hamayun Kabir; Central Minister himself also participated. The meeting was held at Ambala Cantt. and resulted in the passing of various unanimous resolutions of which copy has been placed on record as annexure ''E'' to the writ petition. The only resolutions out of those passed on 23rd November, 1963, which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition, are resolutions Nos. 174 and 5 which are reproduced below:-

(1) The Board hereby delegate''s u/s 22 of the Wakf Act all its powers and duties under the Act as well as all the powers and duties of the Board and the Chairman under, the Punjab Wakf Rules and Regulations to the Secretary of the Board for one year in the first instance.

(4) After Shri Usman Ali Khan Has been in office fcr one year, the position may be reviewed by the Board but any decision of the Board shall be valid only if approved by the State and Central Governments.

(5) The Board hereby further resolves that it shall not by any Resolution alter, modify or rescind this Resolution without the prior approval of the State and Central Government.

Under resolution No. 3 of the same day the Board had recommended the appointment of Shri Usman Ali Khan, retired Deputy. Inspector General of Railway Police as Secretary of the Board on terms and conditions to be settled by the Government. The said resolution further provided that oh the appointment of the above named Secretory, Shri Amjad Ali Khan, the previous Secretary, would start functioning as

Assistant Secretary without affecting the terms and conditions of his service.

It has been the case of the petitioner Board before me that after the above-said unanimous deliberations of the Board to which the State Government and the Central Minister were a party, the proceedings for the threatened supersession of the Board were given up and abandoned when some members of the petitioner-Board met Shri Partap Singh Kairon, the Chief Minister in December, 1963 On the other hand the State has filed a written statement wherein it has been sworn that there was no question of the proceedings for superseding the Board being dropped. The case of the State is that though a D. 0. letter was written by Shri Partap Singh Kaiton, the then Chief Minister of Punjab to Shri Hamayun Kabir, Union Minister, but the 0.0. letter ceased to have any significance when subsequently the Government issued a show-cause notice to the members of the petitioner-Board. According to the State it is wholly wrong to say that the show-cause notice was issued either by an accident or by error. In para. 11 of the written statement it has been said that the question of supersession of the Punjab Wakfs Board was kept pending as no orders regarding the dropping of the proposal of the supersession of the Board were communicated either to the members of Board or to the Secretary thereof. The situation has been described in the said affidavit in reply in the following words:-

It is stated that show-cause notice was issued on 26th September, 1963... No order either dropping or withdrawing the show cause notice had ever been issued by the State Government. On receipt of explanation from the Board, the matter was, therefore, considered by the Government at length and when they found that there was no room left for the Board''s mental outlook conducive to its smooth and efficient functioning, the State Government had no alternative but to pass the order of supersession, dated 30th March, 1965, marked as annexure R. 7.

It has again been stated in para. 25(b) of the written statement as below:-

Para 25(b) is not admitted. No order either dropping or with drawing notice had ever been issued. It must therefore, be concluded that Government had kept the matter under consideration and when they found that resolutions Nos. 4, 5 and 7 dated 22nd/23rd December, 1964, disclose no change of heart and mental outlook conducive to its smooth and efficient functioning, the Government found it fit to give a disposal to the previous show cause notice. They accordingly did so by the supersession of the Board. It is, therefore, wholly incorrect to say that order* of supersession were issued by the Government to shield the Chairman and the Secretary. In fact there was no action pending against the Secretary. It is not correct to say that Government were induced by the Chairman- and the Secretary along with the Central Government to pass the orders of supersession.

It is not disputed that Usman Ali Khan, who was sought to be appointed as Secretary of the Board did not join and that, therefore, Amjad Ali Khan, who had to become Assistant Secretary only in Usman AH Khan joined, continued to perform the duties of the Secretary of the Board. According to the petitioners this was illegal. But on consideration of the relevant resolutions reproduced above it is clear that Amjad Ali Khan was not to abdicate in the air but only in favour, of Usman Ali Khan. The letter of protest of the petitioner Board dated March 23, 1964 (copy annexure ''F'' to the writ petition) protesting against Amjad Ali Khan acting as Secretary does not appear to have been fully justified. To the said letter of the Board, Amjad Ali Khan sent his reply dated April 10, 1964 (copy Annexure ''G'' to the writ petition) wherein he stated that he had received a communication from the Deputy Secretary to the Central Government in the Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals, New Delhi and that it was only on the receipt of advice from the Central Minister that he, started exercising enhanced powers which had been conferred on the office of the Secretary under the resolution dated 23rd November, 1963 Shri Amjad Ali Khan also informed the Board that the Deputy Secretary to the Central Government had asked Mr. Khan to call a meeting of the Board to get his appointment sanctioned as Assistant Secretary but no such meeting was called because Shri Khan had already been appointed as Secretary and he could continue to work in that position till ha was relieved from there by Shri Usman Ali Khan. Till then he did not need an appointment assistant Secretary.

On June 10, 1964 the petitioner-Board recommended the appointment of Shri Mohammad Mohibullah, I.A.S. (Retd.) as Secretary of the Board. Consequent upon this appointment the said gentleman took over from Shri Amjad Ali Khan and he held meetings of the Board dated 23rd September 28th October and 22nd December, 1964.

The period of one year for which all the powers of the Board had been delegated to the Secretary OH 23rd November, 1963 expired in the end of November, 1964. When the meeting of the Board was held on December 22, 1964, it proceeded to pass various resolutions out of which resolutions No. 4(a) and (b) are relevant and were in the following words:-

(a) Resolutions No. 5. 7, 8/1, 8/2, 8/3, 8/4, 8/5, 8/6 and 19 dated 11th November, 1983 held the Chairman responsible for the irregularities and passed a vote of censure against him. The Board instead of delegating enhanced powers, withdraws under this resolution all the powers delegated to the present Chairman Khawaja Mohammad Sayeed u/s 22 of Wakf Act, I964 under different resolutions. The copy of this resolution may be sent for notification in the Punjab Government Gazette.

(b) That the members of Board express their great regret and resolved that they have no confidence in the present Chairman Col. Khawaja Mohammad Sayeed". By virtue of the above-mentioned resolutions the Board withdrew all the powers delegated to Lt. Col. Khawaja Mohammad Sayeed, the then Chairman of the Board.

By resolution No. 6 passed on that day (copy annexure ''J'' to the writ petition) a draft of the powers and duties of the Secretary of the Board was accepted after minor amendments. By resolution No. 7 of the same date the powers which had been delegated and the duties which had been assigned to Chaudhri Mohammad Ashraf Khan, Member of the Board were detailed. The cumulative effect of these resolutions was that the delegation of powers of the Board to the Secretary was not extended, a vote of non-confidence was passed against the Chairman, all his powers were withdrawn and most of the important powers of the Board were vested in Chaudhri Mohammad Ashraf Khan.

It appears that on account of the earlier unanimous resolution of the Board, No. 4, dated 23rd November, 1963 requiring any decision of the Board varying the delegation of powers to the Secretary to be approved by the State and the Central Government before such resolution could be valid, the Secretary continued to exercise the functions of the Board and Mohammad Ashraf Khan was not allowed to take over the same. On January 22, 1965, therefore, Mohommad Ashraf Khan wrote a D. O. letter to the Secretary asking him to explain why he had kept the Board''s resolutions dated 22nd and 23rd December, 1964 in abeyance on the presumption that resolution No. 2 passed by the Board required confirmation of the State and the Central Government as laid down in resolution No. 4 dat;d 23rd November, 1963. According to Mohammad Ashraf Khan the explanation of the Secretary to that effect was an after thought. The Secretary was told in the said letter that there was no justification for keeping the resolution bestowing powers on Mohammad Ashraf Khan in abeyance. He continued to state in the letter that "it is really absurd to think that even this required confirmation from the State and the Central Government."

The Secretary gave his written explanation (Copy annexure ''L'' to the writ petition) in reply to the above-said letter. The relevant part of that reply reads as follows:-

In resolution dated 23rd November, 1963, the Board had delegated all the powers of the Board and of its Chairman to the Secretary. According to clause 5 of the same the Board was not to pass any Resolution to alter, modify or rescind the ab:ve resolution without the prior approval of the State and Central Government, and according to clause 4 any decision taken will not be valid unless approved by the two Governments.

On February 16, 1963 Mohammad Ashraf Khan member of the Board wrote a letter of which copy is annexure ''M'' to the writ petition, to the Secretary making out that no confirmation of the State or the Central Government was necessary and calling upon the Secretary to place the entire correspondence between these two gentlemen in the ensuing meeting of the Board. Copy of that communication was docketed by Mohammad Ashraf Khan to the Home Secretary to the Government of Punjab. In response to that letter the Secretary did not convene any meeting of the Board. Thereupon Mohammad Shan, another member of the Board wrote to him (the Secretary) letter dated 8th March, 1965 (copy annexure ''N'' to the writ petition) wherein the Secretary was told that the proper course for him to follow would have been to summon a meeting of the Board before 22nd November, 1964 or at least include the relevant item in the agenda for the meeting dated 22nd December, 1964 and that if the Secretary had done so, it was pointed out in the letter, the existing complicated situation would not have arisen and the work of the Board would not have suffered. To this letter of Mohammad Shafi the Secretary, replied on 12th March, 1965 (copy annexure ''O'' to the writ petition) wherein it was stated that the question of rescinding the resolution dated 23rd November 1963 was engaging the attention of the Government for a long time before 22nd November 1964. that there was an informal meeting of the Governor with the members of the Board on 23rd October, 1964, that the Secretary had been called by the Central Minister on November 9, 1964, that the Central Minister had given instructions to his Deputy Secretary, Shri Naqvi to go into the question and to report to the Minister and that Shri Naqvi had made a programme to visit the State and in those circumstances the Secretary of the Board could fix a date for a meeting only in consultation with the Deputy Secretary to the Central Government and that is why the meeting had been delayed. Mohammad Mohibulla further added in the letter that it was in these circumstances that he was continuing to exercise the powers delegated to the Secretary. In paragraph 3 of that letter, reference was also made to some trouble about the Islamia High School, Malerkotla.

According to the petitioners nothing further happened and on the 30th of March 1965 two notifications were issued by the Punjab Government, copies of which have been filed as annexures ''P'' and ''Q'' to the writ petition. Notification of which copy is annexure ''P'' reads as follows:-

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 63 of the Wakf Act, 1954 (Act No. 29 of 1954). the Governor of Punjab is pleased to supersede the Wakfs Board for Punjab for a period of six months from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

The second notification, which is consequential in nature and had to be issued by virtue of the provisions of section 64(2) of the Act was in the following words:-

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 64 of the Wakf Act, 1954 (Act No. 29 of W54), the Governor of Punjab is pleased to direct that all the powers and duties which may be or under the provisions of the said Act, be exercised or performed by Or on behalf of the Wakf Board, for Punjab, shall during the period of supersession, be exercised and performed by Shri M. Mehibulla, the Secretary of the said Board.

It would be noticed that by the first of the above said two notifications the petitioner-Board way superseded for a period of six months from the date of the publication of the notification. The notification is stated to have been published on 2nd April, 1965. The result is that the termination of the period of supersession coincides with the end of the five years term of the Board. Consequently, it would not be necessary for the Government to pass any order in connection with the petitioner-Board except to constitute a new one u/s 64(3) of the Act at the end of the tenor of the present Board. So far as the carrying-out of the functions of the Board is concerned, the same had been delegated by the Bard''s unanimous resolution dated 23rd November, 1963 to its Secretary. That resolution could be varied only with the approval of the State and the Central Governments. No such approval has so far been accorded. Under sub section (2) of section 64 it is the Secretary of the Board in whom the powers of the Board have now been vested to be exercised by him during the period of supersession of the Board. All this has, therefore, ended in friction between the Board, (particularly its members to whom its powers were sought to be delegated) on the one hand and between the Secretary of the Board on the other hand. These differences had, as detailed above, cone to the surface when the Government had to resort to the supersession of the Board. There do not, however, appear to be any such large- scale dissensions between the members of the Board inter se so as to have justified the Government''s action to supersede the Board on that ground, tiara saying this because of the fact that 9 out of the 11 members of the Board have joined in filing this petition and nothing at all has been shown on the record of the case except the action taken against the previous Chairman that there was any group politics in the Board which interfered with its functioning.

On May 18.1965 this writ petition was filed by the Board, as stated above, to quash the above-said notifications as the same were alleged to be illegal, void and without authority The State of Punjab is respondent No. 1 in the case and has filed a detailed written statement, extracts from which have already been reproduced above. The Deputy Secretary to the Central Government has been arrayed as respondent No. 2 and has filed separate written statement in which the only averment worth mentioning is that the allegation of the proceedings of the supersession of the Board having been dropped has been denied therein.

Shri H.L. Sarin, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner-Board has made three submissions in support of the writ petition. Firstly, a vague allegation of mala fides of the Deputy Secretary to the Central Government was sought to be pressed in aid. The learned counsel, however, realized very soon that the intended attack in that direction was wholly fruitless in view of the references to the official records which showed that the Deputy Secretary to the Central Government was only performing secondary functions in this matter an 1 it was the Central Minister himself who was taking keen interest in the affairs of the petitioner-Board and who had in the first instance intervened on the recommendation of S. Partap Singh Kairon to save the supersession of the Board hut had at a later stage given up the hope of bringing the matter to an amicable settlement and himself advised the present Chief Minister of the State by letter dated 13th January, 1965 that he may now supersede the Board. I do not think, there is any force in the allegation of mala fides against the Deputy Secretary to the Central Government, nor is there any specific charge to that effect in the writ petition. In the petition, only a vague allegation of mala fides has been made without even specifying the persons against whom the allegation was sought to be leveled.

The second and third contentions of Mr. Sarin are inter-connected and are being taken up by me as one argument The contention is that the impugned notification superseding the Board (with which the other notification is to stand or fall) had been issued without compliance with the mandatory requirements of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 64 of the Act, i.e., without allowing the petitioner-Board reasonable time to show cause why it should not be superseded The argument is that the initial notice had been dropped at the instance of S. Partap Singh Kairon and if Shri Hamayun Kabir had thought it fit to advise the State Government to supersede the Board in March, 1965, a fresh notice to the petitioner-Board under the proviso to section 64(1) was necessary. It is contended that the conduct of the respondents as well as the fact that the Board was allowed to function for a long time after the original show-cause notice as also the letter of the then Chief-Minister show that the proceedings had been dropped and that as a result of the settlement arrived at on 23rd November, 1963 original show cause notice dated 26th September, 1963 was deemed to have been vacated. The second part of the argument is that under the law the State Government can supersede the Wakfs Board only for one of the three reasons specified in sub-section (1) of section 64 (already analysed in an earlier part of this judgment) and that the impugned notification is wholly silent on the material part of the statutory requirement in as much as it does not even suggest or inform the Board as to whether the supersession has been ordered on account of its alleged inability to perform its duties or on account of any allegation of its. having persistently made default in the performance of its duties enjoined upon it by the Act or for any excess or abuse of its powers which had been proved to the satisfaction of the State Government. In reply, the learned Advocate General has referred to the dissensions which had arisen between the Secretary and some members of the Board and to a letter dated 13th January, 1965 from Shri Hamayun Kabir to the Chief Minster, Punjab, to a note about the discussion between the Chief Minister and the Central Minister and to a self contained note of the Deputy Secretary to the Punjab Government in the Home Department with which the Secretary, Home Department agreed on the basis of which Shri Darbara Singh, the Home Minister, Punjab passed final orders of supersession. The case of the learned Advocate General is that the supersession has been ordered because the State Government was satisfied that the Board was unable to properly perform the duties imposed on it by the Act. Shri Sarin states that firstly the notification does not say so; the notification is, therefore, not a speaking one and is vitiated on that point and that secondly "not working properly" is no ground under sub-section (1) of section 64 for superseding the petitioner Board. After hearing the contents of the self-contained detailed note of the Deputy Secretary to the Punjab Government, Mr. Sarin also added that the final action for supersession of the Board appears to have been based on consideration of various matters including the setting up by the Board of a school at Malerkotla in competition with the existing Islamia School there, a matter to which no reference at all had been made in the show-cause notice. On this additional ground, it is contended that the order of supersession is bad. It has also been argued by Mr. Sarin that in the instant case the order of supersession has been virtually passed by Shri Hamayun Kabir, the Central Minister and the Punjab Government has merely acted as a stooge in the hands of the Central Minister and has virtually passed no order of its own. However high the position of the Central Minister may be, it is argued the statutory functions vested in the State Government could be exercised only by the statutory authority and not by someone also even if the other person or authority is higher than the statutory authority.

The learned Advocate General has pointed out that this writ petition merits dismissal without going into its merits because of two things. Firstly, It is argued on behalf of the State, that this Court should not exercise its discretion under Article 229 of the Constitution in this case as the petitioners, who in effect are the members of the Board, cannot obtain any advantage by the grant of any writ, order or direction because after the 2nd of October, 1965 no right of any kind in relation to the Board will be left to them on the termination of their original tenure of five years and that even if the writ petition is now granted directing the State Government to give a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner-Board, the life of the existing members of the Board shall have come to an end long before the proceedings envisaged by section 64(1) of the Act are concluded. Secondly it is contended by Mr. Kaushal, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the Punjab State and for the Deputy Secretary to the Central Government, that no manifest injustice has been done to the petitioners in this case even if there is some technical violation of the provisions of section 64(1) of the Act. On behalf of the petitioners, it was vehemently argued before me that they were more concerned with their public reputation and prestige than any anxiety to serve on the Board. Obviously the petitioners appear to be men of position and status and are justified in claiming that no stigma should be attached to their public or political career without strict compliance with the statutory provisions. But I think that stigma at all ha9 been attached to them as none of them has been removed from the Board, but the Board itself has been superseded. The Board is a statutory body and has an existence in law independent from its members. The members of the Board, who have joined in filing this writ petition, went to the length of offering that they would even resign from the Board if the impugned notification 19 withdrawn by the Government. The learned Advocate General took time to consider that offer but has told me today in the Court in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the voluntary resignation of nine members of the Board would not solve the problem as on the withdrawal of the impugned notification they shall continue in office as members inspite of the submission of resignations until the appointment of their successors is notified in the Official Gazette. This is because of the provisions of section 17 of the Act.

On a consideration of the entire arguments advanced before me I hold:-

(1) that no mala fide act of any of the respondents has been made out or proved in this case;

(2) that the show-cause notice, which had been given to the petitioner-Board on 26th September, 1963, had not been discharged and the proceedings for the supersession of the Board threatened to be taken therein were never dropped and these were the same proceedings which ultimately culminated in the impugned notification of supersession dated 30th March, 1965;

(3) that the impugned notification superseding the Board is bad in law as it does not show as to which of the permissible reasons under the statute prevailed with the Government on account of which the State Government was of the opinion that it is necessary to supersede the Board for six months;

(4) that I would have quashed the impugned notification and would have directed respondent No. 1 to consider the charges against the Board and its explanation and objections and to give a finding one way or the other on the allegations made against the Board and then to pass an order specifying the reason for superseding the Board which reason must be one of the three allowed u/s 64(1) of the Act. But I decline to exercise that discretion in this case in view of the fact that it would be wholly useless to do so in view of the time factor and also the fact that the petitioners are neither anxious to serve on the Board in the prevailing circumstances nor would be able to do so effectively unless they an reappointed on the new Board to be constituted u/s 64(3) of fie Act. It is not for this Court to issue academic writs under Article 226 of the Constitution which serve no effective purpose.

(5) that the order of the Home Minister, Punjab, superseding the Board was the order of the Punjab State and was a competent order and the Home Minister had not abdicated his functions to the Central Minister. It was open to the Home Minister to take into consideration the views and advice of the Central Minister which he was entitled to give on the matters of policy like this, by virtue of the provisions of section 62 of the Act.

(6) that if I had not chosen to dismiss the writ petition on account of the reasons already given by me, I would also have held that the consideration of matters like the setting up of the Malerkotla School for which no show-cause notice had been issued to the petitioners also vitiated the decision of the Punjab Government superseding the petitioner-Board on the grounds including a consideration of the said allegation;

(7) that the unanimous resolution of the petitioner-Board passed on 23rd November, 1963 delegating its functions to the Secretary of the Board continued in force even after the expiry of one year as the resolution proposing to vary the same passed on 22nd December, 1964 was not approved by the State Government and the Central Government. Even if, therefore, this writ petition was granted, the petitioners would not get any relief The Secretary of the Board would continue to exercise the functions of the Board till the 1st of October, 1965.

(8) By virtue of the provisions of section 64(2) of the Act the. powers and duties of the Board delegated to the Secretary by resolution dated 23rd November, 1963 (annexure ''E'' to the writ petition) have been directed to be exercised and performed on behalf of the Board by Shri Mohammad Mohibulla Secretary of the Board. This is an additional factor which shows that any writ issued by me in the instant case on my above-said findings would be wholly fruitless for the petitioners.

In view of my above-said findings I decline to interfere in the instant case and, therefore, dismiss this writ petition but make no order as to costs.