Judgment :- First petitioner in O.P.10680/92 is the Chairman of the Kerala Wakf Board and the second petitioner is one of the members of the Kerala Wakf Board (for short the board). By virtue of the powers conferred by S.11 of the Wakf Act, 1955 Government of Kerala appointed eleven members of the Board on 23-11-1990. The term of office of the member of the Board is 5 years. It is contended that the Board is a high power statutory body constituted for the purpose of better administration and supervision of wakfs. The petitioners further contend that the members of the Board have been discharging their duties honestly and diligently. S.64(1) of the Wakf Act gives power to the Government to supersede the Board. This power could be exercised if the State Government is of the 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. Before exercising the power under S.64(1) the State Government shall give reasonable time to the Board to show cause why it should not be superseded and shall consider the explanation and objection, if any, of the Board. Petitioners allege hat the Government of Kerala is now taking hasty steps to supersede the Kerala Wakf Board. It is alleged that the Government issued a notice to the Secretary of the Board show cause why the Board is not superseded within a period of 3 weeks from the date If the notice, The notice was given to the Secretary on 17-7-92. The copy of the notice s produced as Ext.P2 and one of the allegations against the Board is that in respect of 1 tender notice, notice was not published in newspapers and the other allegation is in espect of leasing out of a portion of the building in favour of a third party. The allegation s that the Board had let out a building for a lesser amount of rent than that was quoted Dy the tenant's counsel. 2. Petitioners allege that in respect of the contract work the total amount involved as Rs.60350/- and the tenders were invited only by publication on the notice board. The mission to invite tenders through proper publication was a bona fide mistake on the part 3f the secretary of the Board. 2. Petitioners allege that in respect of the contract work the total amount involved as Rs.60350/- and the tenders were invited only by publication on the notice board. The mission to invite tenders through proper publication was a bona fide mistake on the part 3f the secretary of the Board. The Board is not having a qualified secretary since 1987. The omission to publish the notice relating to the tender in newspaper was only an irregularity occasioned solely due to the lack of experienced secretary. 3. As regards the allegation relating to the letting out of the portion of the building of the Board, it is contended that one Jose Alappat had agreed to take the portion of the building in question for a monthly rent of Rs.7500/-. His counsel by mistake had reported that Jose Alappat was willing to take up the building for a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-. This mistake was corrected in time by the counsel himself. Originally the rent was Rs.5,000/- and thereafter it was enhanced to Rs.8,000/-. The enhancement was more than 60%. Subsequently the tenant was permitted to modify the portion of the building at his own expense and the monthly rent now payable by him is Rs.11,500/-. The petitioners alleged that as regards the allegations relating to the tender were got investigated through a police officer and the report submitted by the police officer was not served on the petitioners. Therefore, it is contended that the Government is attempting to fabricate false evidence behind the back of the petitioners. According to the petitioners the Wakf Board is a statutory body created for the purpose of administration of the wakfs and the State Government is legally incompetent to interfere with the affairs of the Board. It is further alleged that the petitioners were not given proper notice regarding the proposed supersession of the Board. Notice was given only to the Secretary of the Board and therefore the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings leading to the issuance of Ext.P2 notice. 4. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the original petition. It is alleged that the Government received complaints against the Board. Explanation was sought from the Secretary of the Wakf Board. The allegations were denied. 4. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the original petition. It is alleged that the Government received complaints against the Board. Explanation was sought from the Secretary of the Wakf Board. The allegations were denied. On a perusal of the explanation submitted by the Board, the Government found that the allegations could not be said to be without any substance. The matter was investigated through police. Detailed report was filed by the Inspector General of Police. The Government wanted to ensure that reasonable and effective opportunity be given to the members of the Board before a decision is taken. Therefore, Ext.P2 show cause notice was issued. The same was sent to the Secretary in charge of Kerala Wakf Board. Written explanation was sent to the Government. The Secretary in charge of the Kerala Wakf Board and an advocate were heard in the matter. It is alleged that the State Government can supersede the Wakf Board for one of the three reasons specified under sub-section (1) of S.64 of the Wakf Act. It is contended that the Board had exceeded or abused its powers and therefore it is liable to be superseded under S.64. It is further stated that all communications intended for the Board are addressed to the Secretary of the Wakf Board, and so the show cause notice was issued to the Board. No individual notice to the members of the Board is necessary. The allegation that Government is taking hasty steps to supersede the Kerala Wakf Board is not true. The omission to effect newspaper advertisements in the case of entrustment of repair work of the Board building at Ernakulam is not an omission. R.9(3) of the Kerala Wakf Rules states that for the execution of any work the estimated cost of which is Rs.20,000/- and above, the Board shall invite tenders by advertising in at least two newspapers. The estimate and plan was prepared by one P.K. Jayaraj who is not a qualified Engineer. He himself prepared quotation in the name of V.C. Antony for Rs.72,000/-. Quotation in the name of S.P.Xaviour for Rs.68,000/- was prepared by Xaviour himself at the request of Jayaraj. Another quotation was found to be bogus. Allegation regarding letting out of a portion of Wakf Board building to Jose Alappat does not appear to be without any substance. He himself prepared quotation in the name of V.C. Antony for Rs.72,000/-. Quotation in the name of S.P.Xaviour for Rs.68,000/- was prepared by Xaviour himself at the request of Jayaraj. Another quotation was found to be bogus. Allegation regarding letting out of a portion of Wakf Board building to Jose Alappat does not appear to be without any substance. The affidavit of the counsel reveal that Jose Alappat may take up the building for a rent of Rs.10,000/-. The Board collected rent only at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per mensem. The structural modification effected by Jose Alappat was contrary to the conditions of lease. It is further stated that Government have not taken any final decision to supersede the Wakf Board. Petitioners cannot claim as of right insist for the copies of investigation report and statements recorded by the police. 5. In O.P.I 1430 of 1992, petitioners are members of the Wakf Board and almost similar contentions have been raised in this original petition also. Therefore, I do not propose to re-state all these allegations. 6. I heard the petitioners' counsel and the learned Addl. Advocate General Slid. V.K. Beeran. The State Government issued notice to the Wakf Board under S.64(1) of the Wakf Act, 1954 as to why the Board should not be superseded. The Wakf Board is a statutory authority formed for the purpose of management and administration of Wakf properties. The Board of Wakf is established by the State Government as a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and transfer property. The members of the Board are appointed by the State Government as per S.11 of the Act. The various functions of the Board are staled in S.15 of the Act. The provisions contained in Chap.8 of the Act give wide powers to the Government. S.63 says that subject to any directions on questions of policy issued under S.62, the State Government may, from time to time, 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 any such directions. S.64 gives the power to the State Government to supersede the Board. S.64 gives the power to the State Government to supersede the Board. The relevant portion of S.64(1) reads as follows: "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". proviso to S.64(1) says that the State Government shall give 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. In the instant case, the Board has now been served with a notice as to why the Government should not supersede the Board. Several contentions have been urged against the proposed supersession by the Government. 7. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the Board has, in fact, not been served with a notice under proviso to S.64(1) of the Act and, therefore, the whole proceedings are vitiated due to want of notice. The learned Addl.Advocate General contended that the Wakf Board is a body corporate and under S.21(2) of the Act the Secretary shall be the Chief Executive Officer and he has also the administrative control of the Board. In this case, the notice was served on the Secretary and the Board was called upon to submit explanation as to why it should not be superseded. It is not necessary that each members of the Board should be served with notice under proviso to S.64(1). The proviso only say & that the State Government shall give a reasonable time to the Board to show cause and the Secretary being the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, he is entitled to take notice on behalf of the Board in all matters. If a notice is received by Secretary under proviso to S.64(1) he is bound to bring that fact to the notice of the Board and that would definitely give opportunity to the Chairman and the members of the Board to submit explanation. If a notice is received by Secretary under proviso to S.64(1) he is bound to bring that fact to the notice of the Board and that would definitely give opportunity to the Chairman and the members of the Board to submit explanation. The counsel for the petitioner contended that if the notice is given to the Secretary he may give-some explanation which would not be beneficial to the members or rather it may also be prejudicial to some of the members of the Board. I am unable to accept this contention. The notice is issued to the Board and the Secretary, being the Chief Executive Officer, receives the notice on behalf of the Board and if the notice is received by the Secretary it is sufficient compliance of the proviso to S.64(1) of the Act. So the objection of the petitioners regarding want of notice is only to be rejected. 8. The other contention raised by the petitioners is that the State Government exceeded its power in issuing show cause notice and the proposed supersession is unreasonable and not warranted by the provisions of the Act. The counsel for the petitioners made special emphasis to the terms used in S.64 and argued that the Government can take steps to supersede only if the Board has persistently defaulted in the performance of its duty. It is contended that one or two isolated incidents cannot be construed as persistent default in the performance of duty and therefore the whole procedure is illegal. The learned Addl. Advocate General contended that S.64(1) of the Act envisages three situations wherein the Government could take action against the Board. It is argued that if the Board is unable to perform its duty or has persistently made defaults in the performance or has exceeded or abused its powers the Government can take action against the Board, It is argued that even if there is a single incident and that amounted to non-performance of a duty or abuse of the powers of the Board, then also the Government can take action under S.64. It is also argued that the Government has got right to examine whether the Board has exceeded or abused its powers and persistence of such abuse of powers or non-performance of duty is not contemplated under S.64(1). It is also argued that the Government has got right to examine whether the Board has exceeded or abused its powers and persistence of such abuse of powers or non-performance of duty is not contemplated under S.64(1). It is true that there need not be persistent abuse of powers or non-performance of duty to warrant a supersession under S.64 of the Act. Even if there is a single incident which amounted to gross violation of the powers of the Board, the Government would be justified in exercising its powers under S.64(1) of the Act. 9. This Court on earlier occasion went into this question and explained as to what is persistent default. In Kerala Wakf Board v. State (AIR 1984 Ker.57) this Court held that a single act of omission in excess or abuse of power, which in consequence and gravity can be equated to inability to perform, or persistent default in the performance of duty, by reason of its continuing impact, may visit upon the Board the extreme penalty of supersession. But this must be an extreme case of flagrant violation of the legal obligation of the Board. In the very same decision the word "persistently" occurring in S.64 of the Act is explained and held that the word must also generally guide the construction of the words "or has exceeded or abused its powers". The observation of the Court is as follows: "The word "persistently" in S.64 proceeds immediately in the words "made default in the performance of the duty imposed on it by or under this Act". That word must also generally guide the construction of the words "or has exceeded or abused its powers", as otherwise it would mean that the one single act of excess or abuse of power, however, insignificant or technical can subject the Board to the drastic punishment of supersession. Such intention cannot be reasonably attributed to the legislature. S.18 empowers the Government to remove the Chairman or any member of the Board in certain circumstances and S.63 to give certain directions. The legislature would not have intended that, notwithstanding these powers, the Government should ordinarily resort to the drastic remedy of superseding the Board for a single act of excess or abuse of power". The learned Addl. S.18 empowers the Government to remove the Chairman or any member of the Board in certain circumstances and S.63 to give certain directions. The legislature would not have intended that, notwithstanding these powers, the Government should ordinarily resort to the drastic remedy of superseding the Board for a single act of excess or abuse of power". The learned Addl. Advocate General drew my attention to a decision reported in Wakfs Board for Punjab and other v. The State of Punjab and others (Punjab Law Reporter Vol.LXVIII-1966) where the court refused to interfere with the supersession order passed by the Government under S.64 of the Act. The facts of the case show that serious irregularities were committed by the Board and the Board itself was not in a position to discharge their functions. There was acute dissensions amongst the members of the Board and several resolutions were passed to the effect that the Chairman was responsible for the irregularly and passed a vole of censure against him and when the original petition came up for hearing the members of the Board expressed that they had no intention to continue in office. Il was under that circumstance, the original petition was dismissed. 10. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the two allegations mentioned in the notice do not in any way cast aspersion on the members of the Board and that it cannot be said that either the Chairman or the Board abused its powers or exceeded its authority. As the contention of the petitioners is that the proposed action is unreasonable, it is proper that this Court should consider the facts though not in detail. In Ext.P2 notice, one of the allegations is that the contract of repair of the Board building at Broadway was given to one Jayaraj without following the rules stipulated in the Kerala Wakf Rules, 1966 and the Board, thus, misused its power for obtaining substantial financial gain for the Chairman and the Members of the Board by conspiring with the contractor. It is contended that as per R.9(3) a contract work exceeding Rs.20,000/- could be carried out by inviting lenders by advertising them in at least 2 newspapers having sufficient circulation in the Slate. Here the contract amount was Rs.60,350/-. Petitioners contend that steps relating to invitation of lender were done by the Secretary of the Wakf Board. It is contended that as per R.9(3) a contract work exceeding Rs.20,000/- could be carried out by inviting lenders by advertising them in at least 2 newspapers having sufficient circulation in the Slate. Here the contract amount was Rs.60,350/-. Petitioners contend that steps relating to invitation of lender were done by the Secretary of the Wakf Board. According to the pelitioner, he is not a qualified Secretary and the Board had been making repeated requests to appoint a qualified Secretary and as the Secretary was not aware' of the relevant procedure regarding invitation of lenders the above said mistake was committed. I need not consider whether the explanation is satisfactory or not. I consider this fact only for the purpose of reasonableness and fairness on the part of the Government in issuing notice under S.64(1) for supersession. Going by the allegations, it could only be an irregular step which could have been corrected by the Government under S.63 of the Act. It may be noticed that under S.63 of the Act, the Government may, from time to time, give to the Board such general or special directions as the State Government thinks fit and the Board is bound to comply with such directions. So, if the Board committed any irregularity, the State can take action and going by the decision reported in Kerala Wakf Board v. State (AIR 1984 Ker.57) a single act of non-publication of the tender in two newspapers cannot be said to be in excess or abuse of power which docs not have a continuing impact upon duties and functioning of the Board. That cannot also be construed as an extreme case of flagrant violation of the legal obligation of the Board. The irregularly could have been rectified and appropriate direction could have been given by the Government. If the entire facts are viewed in that angle, it is only to be held that it is an unreasonable step taken by the Government by issuing notice under S.64 of the Act. 11. Coming to the next allegation, the counsel for the petitioners argued that the tenant Jose Alappat had agreed to lake up the room for Rs.8000/- per mensem but his counsel by mistake conveyed to the Board that the tenant was prepared to go upto Rs.11,000/- per mensem. The counsel for the tenant is a senior Advocate of this Court. 11. Coming to the next allegation, the counsel for the petitioners argued that the tenant Jose Alappat had agreed to lake up the room for Rs.8000/- per mensem but his counsel by mistake conveyed to the Board that the tenant was prepared to go upto Rs.11,000/- per mensem. The counsel for the tenant is a senior Advocate of this Court. Ext.P4 is an affidavit field by that counsel. That clearly explains the position. The counsel has mentioned that he explained the mistake and requested the Standing Counsel of the Board to convey to the Board members that the offer of Jose Alappat was, in fact, only for Rs.7500/- per mensem. The building was leased out to him for an amount of Rs.8000/- per mensem. This also cannot be said to be flagrant violation of 'the provisions of the Act or abuse of powers by the Board. 12. The Wakf Board is a statutory authority and wide powers are given to the Board. The Government is given supervisory control over the Board and a notice under S.64(1) could be issued when it is absolutely necessary and in cases where the matters could not have been dealt with under S.63 of the Act. The whole proceedings taken against Board are challenged on the ground that they are unreasonable and improper exercise of power. The word 'unreasonable' in the field of administrative law assumes as a ground for setting aside a proceeding when the decision-making authority failed to take into account the relevant consideration or acting in a way in which no reasonable person would act. Taking into consideration of the entire facts of the case and also having due regard to the principles laid down by this Court in Kerala Wakf Board's case cited supra with which I am in respectful agreement, I am of the view that the notice issued to the petitioners under S.64(i) of the Act is liable to be interfered with. 13. The learned Addl. Advocate General said that a notice alone has been issued under S.64(1) and the petitioner would be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and a decision would be taken only after affording that opportunity and, therefore, this Court need not interfere with Ext.P2 notice. Even at the notice stage, the Supreme Court had occasion to interfere with the proceedings (See Calcutta Discount Co. v. I. T. Officer (AIR 1961 SC 372). Even at the notice stage, the Supreme Court had occasion to interfere with the proceedings (See Calcutta Discount Co. v. I. T. Officer (AIR 1961 SC 372). That depends on the circumstances of each case. The averments in the two counter-affidavits show that the Government proposed to lake action under S.64(1) of the Wakf Act. Therefore, I set aside the show cause notice issued under S.64(1)of the Wakf Act. Original Petitions are allowed.