JUDGMENT : K.K. Birla, J. This writ petition has been directed mainly for quashing the orders dated 23-6-85 and 16-4-82 passed by the Controller U.P. Shia Central Board of Waqfs of Lucknow, Respondent No. 2 Nawab S. Mohd. Ali Khan, Petitioner No. 1 is the son of late Nawab S. Murtaza Ali Khan and Petitioner no 2 Nawab Aftar Zamani Begum is the widow of late Nawab S. Murtaza Ali Khan. Nawabzada Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Respondent No. 3 is the brother of deceased Nawab S. Murtaza Ali Khan. The dispute relates to seven waqfs created by the Ruler of erstwhile Rampur State in 1855. Earlier the eldest son succeeding to the Rulership of the Rampur State used to be appointed as the Mutwalli of these waqfs. On the death of Nawab Sayed Raza Ali Khan Saheb in 1966, his eldest son late Nawab S. Murtaza Ali Khan became the Mutwalli of these waqfs. It is not in dispute that these waqfs have been duly registered with Shia Central Board of Waqfs. As quoted in para 20 of the petition the Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Nawab Mutwalli by the U.P. Shia Central Board of Waqfs by order dated 4th January 1979 vide Annexure-1. 2. On the application of the Petitioner No. 1 the U.P. Shia Central Board of Waqfs appointed the Petitioner No. 1 as Mutwalli and also ordered for the continuance of the Petitioner No. 2 as Naib Mutwalli. It appears that certain complaints were made before the State Government and the U.P. Government passed an order directing the Board for staying the operation of the impugned order dated 14th April, 1982. In view of the above directions by order dated 16 4-82 the Board stayed the operation of its order dated 14th April, 1982 till further orders. A reference u/s 55 of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act was preferred before the District Judge, Rampur by the Petitioners but the same was rejected as not maintainable by order dated 24th April, 1982. The Respondent No. 3 had also applied for being appointed as Mutwalli. The Respondent No. 2 held an enquiry in which the Petitioner no 1 and Respondent No. 3 participated. The Respondent No. 3 had also applied for being appointed as Mutwalli. The Respondent No. 2 held an enquiry in which the Petitioner no 1 and Respondent No. 3 participated. After giving various reasons the Respondent No. 2 was of the opinion that the Petitioner No. 1 should not be appointed as Mutwalli, that there was no necessity of the appointment of a Naib Mutwalli and that the Respondent No. 3 will be the proper person to be so appointed. The Respondent No. 2, accordingly, by the impugned order appointed Respondent No. 3 the Mutwalli of all the seven waqfs; Being aggrieved the Petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashing the aforesaid orders. 3. The impugned order has been challenged before us on various grounds. It is contended that the Petitioner No. 1 is the only son of the deceased Mutwalli and as such under the terms of the deed is the only competent person to be appointed as Mutwalli, that the question of title or succession to the waqfs could not have been decided by the Board and this question could have been decided by the Civil Court only. It is contended that on this basis the impugned order is a nullity and without jurisdiction. It is also contended that under the Act the Board had no power to appoint Mutwalli and that on the death of Nawab S. Murtaza Ali Khan the Petitioner No. 1 became automatically the Mutwalli of these waqfs. These contentions have been repelled on behalf of the contesting Respondents. In the impugned order on internal page-9 the procedure and the condition for appointment of Mutwalli has been given as below: My son Mohd. Yusuf Ali Khan, Prince Royal (Wali-Ahed) is appointed as Mutwalli for life, and is given the authority to appoint in future from amongst his sons the one, who may be the Ruler, as Mutwalli for performing the prescribed duties. Similarly in future every Mutwalli shall have the right to appoint from amongst his sons the one, who may be recognised as the Ruler as Mutwalli of the Waqfs. In the event of any Mutwalli being issueless (that is had no son) he shall appoint a person from his family or from out-side, who may be able and honest, as Mutwalli of the waqfs. In the event of any Mutwalli being issueless (that is had no son) he shall appoint a person from his family or from out-side, who may be able and honest, as Mutwalli of the waqfs. There is no dispute that the former states have come to an end and the former Rampur State is no more inexistence. As such there is now no Ruler of Rampur State. Tee princely order has also been abolished in 1971. Under the procedure quoted above the Mutwalli had the right to appoint from amongst his sons one, who could be recognised as the Ruler, as Mutawalli of the waqfs. Even if, this principle is held to be applicable, late Sri Murtza S. Ali Khan had not appointed the Petitioner no 1 as Mutwalli of there waqfs. Therefore, this provision for the appointment of Mutawalli is clearly in-applicable, in the present case. Similarly in the second clause also it was for the Mutawalli to appoint a person and that action had not been exercised by late Nawab S Murtaza Ali Khan The terms of the waqfs and even the intention of waqif regarding appointment of Mutwalli has clearly become in-applicable now in the changed circumstances. 4. From the material on record and from the impugned order also it is evident that the Petitioner no 1 is residing in the United States of America and is also a Green Card holder. In the impugned order, after discussion, it has been found and in our opinion rightly that he is not a person who can properly manage the waqfs' property. There does not appear to be any infirmity on this point. The appointment of a Mutawalli should be in the best interest of the Institution. 5. The main contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners are legal. 6. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the Petitioner No. 1 automatically became the Mutawalli of these waqfs. In our opinion, this contention can not be accepted. According to the terms of the waqfs already quoted above the right has been given to every Mutawalli to appoint the Mutawalli. Admittedly the last Mutawalli, that is, Nawab S. Murtaza Ali Khan did not exercise that right and power and he had not appointed any one as Mutawalli of these waqfs. According to the terms of the waqfs already quoted above the right has been given to every Mutawalli to appoint the Mutawalli. Admittedly the last Mutawalli, that is, Nawab S. Murtaza Ali Khan did not exercise that right and power and he had not appointed any one as Mutawalli of these waqfs. Apart from this due to changed circumstances there was no Ruler of the Rampur State nor the State was in existence at the time of the death of Sri S. Murtza Ali Khan and as such there was no person who could be qualified to be appointed as Mutawalli in accordance with the terms of the waqfs deed. The second para will also not be strictly applicable as Sri S. Murtaza Ali Khan did not die issueless. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the Petitioner No. 1 that he had automatically became the Mutawalli is devoid of any merit and is without force on this ground. 7. Apart from this, it has been admitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner before us that on the death of Nawab S Murtaza Ali Khan he applied to the Board for being appointed as Mutawalli and in pursuance of his application the order dated 14th April, 1982 (Annexure-3) appointing him as such was passed. Thus he himself had conceded that the Board had the right of appointment. It was contended now that this application was moved by him under erroneous view and is misconceived. In our opinion this argument has now been developed in order to nagative the effect of the application moved by the Petitioner No. 1 himself. We, therefore, find that the Petitioner No. 1 did not automatically become the Mutawalli of these waqfs on the death of the previous Mutawalli. 8. It was next contended that the Board could not have appointed any one Mutawalli, it could not decide the question of title of succession as between the contenders and it was the Civil Court who could have decided this matter Much reliance has been placed on the case of Adam Aboobacker Sait Vs. Kerala Wakf Board and Others, AIR 1982 Ker 322 . The case of the aforesaid ruling was covered by Waqfs Act of 1954, (here-in-after referred as Central Act). Admittedly the present case is covered by U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as the U.P. Act). Kerala Wakf Board and Others, AIR 1982 Ker 322 . The case of the aforesaid ruling was covered by Waqfs Act of 1954, (here-in-after referred as Central Act). Admittedly the present case is covered by U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as the U.P. Act). Before entering into the question whether a Mutawalli can be appointed by the Board under the U.P. Act or not, the relevant provisions of both the Acts may be mentioned. The definition of Mutawalli is given in Section 3 Clause (5) of the U.P. Act and u/s 3 Clause (f) of the Central Act. 9. Section 15 of the Central Act deals with the functions of the Board. The relevant provisions are quoted below: (1) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the general superintendence of all waqfs in a State in relation to all matters, except those which are, expressly required by this Act to be dealt with by the Waqf Commissioner, shall vest in the Board established for the State; and it shall be the duty of the Board so to exercise its power under this Act as to ensure that the waqfs under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered and the income thereof is duly applied to the objects and for the purpose for which such waqfs were created or intended. Provided that in exercising its powers under this Act in respect of any waqf, the Board shall act in conformity with the directions of the waqif, the purposes of the waqf and any usage or custom of the waqf sanctioned by the Muslim law. Explanation :.... (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the functions of the Board shall be: (g) to appoint and remove Mutawalli in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Section 42 provides that "when there is a vacancy in the office of the Mutawalli of a waqf and there is no one to be appointed under the terms of the deed of the waqf, or where the right of any person to act as Mutawalli is dispute, the Board may appoint any person to act as Mutawalli for such period and on such conditions as it may think fit. 10. Under the U.P. Act, Section 19 deals with the functions of the Board. 10. Under the U.P. Act, Section 19 deals with the functions of the Board. The relevant provisions are given below: (1) The general superintendence of all waqfs to which this Act applies shall vest in the Board. The Board shall do all things reasonable or necessary to ensure that the waqfs (**) under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered and the income thereof is duly appropriated to the purposes for which they were founded or for which they exist. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Sub-section (1), the powers and duties of the Board shall be: (o) to remove a Mutawalli, or appoint a 'Mutawalli and to put the Mutawalli so appointed in possession of the waqf property under the provisions of this Act: Provided that in the appointment of Mutawalli or in making any other management of waqf property, the Board shall be guided, as far as possible, by the directions of the waqf, if any. Section 48 is as follows: 48. Emergency powers of Board when office of Matawalli of waqf vacant--Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by Clause (o) of Sub-section (2) of Section 19, the Board may, where there is a vacancy in the office of the Mutawalli of a waqf: (a) appoint any person to act as Mutawalli for such period and on such conditions as it thinks fit; or (b) by notification in the official Gazette assume direct management of the waqf for (such period not exceeding five years as may be specified in the notification): Provided that in the case of a waqf created by a deed, the Board may act under this section only if there is no one competent to be appointed as Mutawalli under the terms of such deed). 11. In our opinion the case of Adam Aboobacker (Supra) in quite distinguishable and inapplicable to the present case. In that case Sri Adam Aboobacker was appointed as a Managing trustee according to the directions contained in the will executed by Abdul Sathur Haji Moosa Sait. His appointment was challenged by the Respondents No. 2 to 4 who were also the descendants of the testator before the Board. In that case Sri Adam Aboobacker was appointed as a Managing trustee according to the directions contained in the will executed by Abdul Sathur Haji Moosa Sait. His appointment was challenged by the Respondents No. 2 to 4 who were also the descendants of the testator before the Board. In the case before us, as already discussed above, the appointment of the Mutawalli has been made by the Board and that according to the terms or intention of the original waqfs none of the parties were qualified to be appointed as not being the Ruler. Secondly under the waqfs deed, the right to appoint was given to the Mutawalli himself. 12. Apart from the facts being distinct, the legal position is also different under both the Acts. While interpreting the provisions of the Central Act in the above cited case of Adam Aboobacker, it has been held that the power of the Board with regard to the appointment and removal of a Mutawalli is strictly restricted to the circumstances mentioned in Section 42 and Section 43. Neither Section 45 nor Section 44 independently permits the Board to remove a Mutawalli except upon a finding of mismanagement and by recourse to the power u/s 43. Section 15(2)(g) does not independently give the Board any substantive power to remove a Mutawalli.... The Board has no power under the Act to adjudicate upon title to office. Therefore, it has no power to adjudicate upon questions relating to the validity of appointment of the Managing Trustee of a Mutawalli in terms of the waqfs. The question whether he was rightly appointed is a matter for the Civil Court to pronounce upon." 13. Proviso to Section 15 (1) of the Central Act provides that in exercising its powers under this Act in respect of any waqf, the Board shall act in conformity with the directions of the qakif, the purposes of the waqf and any usage or custom of the wakf sanctioned by the Muslim law. Thus this provision contains a mandatory direction to the Board. On the other hand, under proviso to Sub-section (2) Clause (o) of the U.P. Act it is mentioned that in the appointment of Mutawalli...the Board shall be guided, as far as possible, by the directions of the wakifs, if any. Thus in this provision it is only provided that the Board shall be guided as far as possible. On the other hand, under proviso to Sub-section (2) Clause (o) of the U.P. Act it is mentioned that in the appointment of Mutawalli...the Board shall be guided, as far as possible, by the directions of the wakifs, if any. Thus in this provision it is only provided that the Board shall be guided as far as possible. This clearly shows that in proper cases the Board may disregard the directions of the waqif. In the instant case the Board had found that the Petitioner No. 1 is not in a position to manage the property of the waqf properly. As discussed above this appears to be correct and therefore, such appointment could not be said to be bad in law in view of the wordings and the intention contained in this proviso. 14 It was next contended that as under the Central Act, the power of the Board with regard to the appointment is restricted to the circumstances mentioned in Section 42, under the U.P. Act also the power to appoint a Mutawalli is restricted to Section 48 and is not independent of it. This contention too cannot be accepted. 15. Under Clause (g) of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Central Act, the Mutawalli is to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. According to the above cited case the provisions of such appointment are contained in Section 42 of the Central Act and the power of appointment by the Board therefore, could have only been exercised wherein the Board could appoint to act as Mutawalli for a certain period on certain conditions. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that on the same analogy the Board under the U.P. Act has no power to appoint a Mutawalli independent of Section 48 of the U.P. Act which only provides the emergency powers of the Board. In our opinion, this contention is without force. Section 19 of the U.P. Act deals with the functions of the Board. Sub-section (2) prescribes power and duties of the Board Under Clause (o) the Board has power to remove a Mutawalli or appoint a Mutawalli. In Section 48 of the U.P. Act it is specifically provided that without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by Clause (o) of sub-section (2) of Section 19, the Board may,.... Sub-section (2) prescribes power and duties of the Board Under Clause (o) the Board has power to remove a Mutawalli or appoint a Mutawalli. In Section 48 of the U.P. Act it is specifically provided that without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by Clause (o) of sub-section (2) of Section 19, the Board may,.... Therefore, the power given in u/s 48 does not in any manner limit the power given in Clause (o) of Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the U.P. Act. On the other hand, the power u/s 48 is without prejudice to that power or without effecting that power. We are, therefore, of the opinion that u/s 19 of the U.P. Act the Board has the power to appoint a Mutawalli. The Board had power to appoint a Mutawalli independent of such power being given u/s 48 of the U.P. Act. The exercise of power u/s 48 of the U.P. Act is limited to the circumstances given therein. Therefore, this contention of the Petitioner also fails and the Board is quite competent to appoint a Mutawalli whenever the occasion arises. 16. It is next contended that the impugned order is an order of removal of the Petitioner No. 1 from the Mutawalliship, that a Mutawalli can only be removed in accordance with Section 55 of the U.P. Act and that as none of the clauses given in that section are applicable to the present case, nor the same have been considered, the impugned order is bad. In our opinion this contention too is of no avail to the Petitioners. Clearly enough the impugned order is not an order of removal as contemplated u/s 55 of the U.P. Act. On the other hand, the earlier order was passed under some misconception as discussed in the impugned order itself. The State Government issued the directions for its consideration. u/s 43 of the U.P. Act the State Government may from time to lime, give to the Board such general or special directions as the State Government thinks fit and in the performance of its functions the Board shall comply with such directions. The State Government issued the directions for its consideration. u/s 43 of the U.P. Act the State Government may from time to lime, give to the Board such general or special directions as the State Government thinks fit and in the performance of its functions the Board shall comply with such directions. It was in pursuance of the directions given by the State Government that the Board stayed on 16th April, 1982 the operation of the order dated 14th April, 1982 and reconsidered the matter after a thorough enquiry and after giving opportunity to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 in this regard. Therefore, it was a case of reviewing the order dated 14th April, 1982 and not a case of removal of the Mutawalli u/s 55 of the U.P. Act. 17. The Petitioner no, 2 had not been appointed a Naib Mutawalli in her own right She could not be as the deed of waqf did not say so. She had been appointed to assist the earlier Mutawalli being her wife and the same came to an end on his death. The Petitioner No. 1 also made a request to that effect presumably as he was away in the United States. The appointments of Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were inter-linked. Once the appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 disappears the appointment of Petitioner No. 2 automatically falls. Moreover, no argument was advanced to assail the removal of Petitioner No. 2. 18. In view of the above discussions the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and does not call for any interference by the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.