Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the Union of India to "trifurcate the assets and liabilities of Punjab Wakf Board among the States of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh . ..." He further prays that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the concerned States to constitute their "Wakf Boards in accordance with Chapter IV of the Wakf Act, 1995
2.Written statements have been filed by different respondents. It has been suggested that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. It has been further pointed out that there is no cause of action which may entitle the petitioner to maintain this petition. The respondents also point out that the action of Union Government in not trifurcating the assets of the Board is in conformity with the provisions of Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 as also Section 106 of the Wakf Act, 1995. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 7 and 9 it has been inter alia averred that the Central Government had convened a meeting "of Ministers in charge of the subject of wakf from the 3 constituent States, namely, Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh and also the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Since no consensus could be arrived at (in) the said meeting held in New Delhi under the Chairmanship of Union Welfare Minister on 27.8.1996, it was decided that for the time being the composite Wakf Board may continue.
3. A separate written statement has also been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana. It has been pointed out that "as compared to Punjab the Wakf properties in Haryana are less". On the other hand the Muslim population in Haryana is far more than that of Punjab. Thus, in the interest of Muslim population of State of Haryana, it will not be just and proper to trifurcate the assets and liabilities of the present Punjab Wakf Board, as it is equally serving the interest of the Muslim population residing in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. In Annexure R-3/1 attached to this reply to the writ petition, a detailed analysis has been given. It has been inter alia pointed out that Muslim population in Punjab is only 3 lacs. In Himachal Pradesh it is 1 lac. In the Union Territory, Chandigarh the number of Muslim is 20,000. The Muslim population in the State of Haryana is said to be 9.50 lacs. H has also been pointed out that the expenditure of Imams etc. is more than Rs.35.00 lacs for Haryana while it is only Rs.14 to 15 lacs in Punjab.
4. On behalf of State of Punjab, a written statement has been filed through Deputy Secretary Home. It has been averred in para No.1 that no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner. It has also been averred that the Central Government is competent Under Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 to extend the term of Punjab Wakf Board and exercise all the powers of the State Government under the Act. However, the State of Punjab has already taken steps and made communication to the Central Government for separation/creation of Punjab Wakf Board exclusively for the State of Punjab
5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refer to any provision in the Act which may make it incumbent on the Central Government to trifurcate the existing Board. Despite being asked he has not been able to show that it is incumbent upon the Central Government to reconstitute the existing Board so as to make it into 3 parts separately for the States of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Still further, it deserves notice that under the provisions of Section 106 the Central Government can, if it finds that "it is expedient in the interest of the Wakfs in the State and the Muslim population of such States, to have, instead of separate Boards for each of such State, a common Board, it may, after consultation with the Government of each of the concerned States, establish, by notification in the Official Gazette, a Common Board for such States as it may deem fit . ..." Thus the legislative policy is that the Central Government is competent to constitute a Common Board for more than one State. In the present case, it was by an Act of Parliament and in particular under provisions of Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 that the Punjab Wakf Board had to operate as an Inter-State Corporation. It is in conformity with Section 72 that the Board has continued to function for all the territories as covered under the provisions of Punjab Reorganisation Act. There is no provision and at least none has been referred to by the counsel during the course of arguments which may show that the Central Government was bound to trifurcate the existing Board into separate Boards for different States.
7. Factually, it has been pointed out on behalf of State of Haryana that factors like size of population, the resources of Wakfs in such States and the disproportion between the number and income of the Wakfs, are relevant considerations for taking a decision regarding the constitution of one Board for more than one State. Indeed, it is so under the provisions of Section 106. These are relevant factors and if in view of these facts the Central Government has considered it appropriate to allow the existing Board to continue to function for the various territories, it cannot be said that it has committed any illegality so as to warrant any intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. Faced with this situation, Mr. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under the provisions of Section 13 it is incumbent upon each of the State Government viz. the States of Punjab and Haryana etc., to establish Boards of Wakfs. Even this contention is misconceived. Section 13 inter alia provides that the State government "may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf a Board of Wakfs This provision enables the Government to constitute aboard. However, in the present case such an occasion has not arisen for the State Government: The Punjab Wakf Board which existed prior to November 1, 1996 continues to function for the territories of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh. This is so under the provisions of Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. The said provision categorically ordains that the existing Board shall "continue to function and operate in those areas in respect of which it was functioning and operating immediately before the appointed day . ..." It is the admitted position that on October 31, 1966, the Punjab Board was functioning in the areas referred to in the Punjab Reorganisation Act Viz. The State of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh. By virtue of the mandate of the Parliament as contained in Section 72 it continues to function in those areas even now. So long as the Board is functioning in those territories, the occasion for passing an order under Section 13 has not arisen for the State of Punjab etc.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the notifications, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-5 are invalid and illegal. Is it so?
10. By notification dated October 18, 1996, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-3 the Central Government had extended "the period of supersession of the Punjab Wakf Board for a further period of 1 year on and from the first day of May, 1996 to the 30th. day of April, 1997. By notification dated April 9, 1997, the period of supersession was further extended from the 1st day of May to 30th day of April, 1998. A copy of this notification is Annexure P-4. By notification dated October 18, 1996. A copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition, the Central Government had appointed Mr. A.A. Siddiqui "an officer of the Indian Police Service of Punjab cadre as Administrator, Punjab Wakf Board in addition to his existing duties under the Government of India "
11. So far as these three notifications are concerned, it has not been shown that the Central Government did not have the power to supersede the existing Board or that it could not have appointed the Administrator. Still further, in our view, the petitioner has no cause of action so far as supersession of the Board is concerned. If at all the grievance could have been made by the persons who were the members of the Board.
12. Mr. Dinesh Kumar contends that in fact no Board has been constituted after the promulgation of 1995 Act. The counsel for the respondents concede this position. It has, however, been pointed out that the Central Government is competent to supersede an existing Board under the provisions of Section 64 of 1954 Act as also under Section 99 of 1995 Act. Besides that if the Central Government had considered it appropriate to order that the affairs of the Boards be managed by the Administrator, we find no material on the record of this case to interfere with the order. The persons who were superseded have not approached the Court to complaint that the action was illegal. The petitioner personally has no cause of action.
13. No other point has been raised.
14. We find no ground to interfere in the present case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.