JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant filed a petition claiming to be interested in Wakfs and proper working of the Wakf Board as a Citizen of India who is Muslim by religion. It was contended in the petition that the petitioner along with others was nominated by the State Government as a member of the Rajasthan Muslim Board of Wakf (at present renamed Rajasthan Wakf Board) and after such nomination was elected by the members of the Board as the Chairman. The term of the Board was to expire on 2.1.1996. On 1.1.1996 the New Wakf Act, 1995 came into force. Before the term of the Board expired and before the New Wakf Act came into force the petitioner submitted his resignation in the month of December, 1995. However, the State Government extended the term of the members of the Board including that of the petitioner vide notification dated 2.1.1996. The extension was granted till reconstitution of the Board under the New Wakf Act. A corrigendum was issued on 10.1.1997 clarifying that the order of extension dated 10.1.1997 was passed in exercise of powers granted under section 19 of the Wakf Act, 1995. 2. On 12.1.1999 the State Government rescinded the order dated 2.1.1996 by which extension was granted to the Board till reconstitution of the Board under the New Act. By this order the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 13 of the Wakf Act, 1995 appointed Shri S.N. Qureshi then posted as Deputy Secretary, Irrigation to discharge functions of the Wakf Board as Administrator in addition to the duties he was then discharging as Dy. Secretary Irrigation. Reasons for passing this order was stated in the order to be that the Board had exceeded its term by three years and some of the members who were appointed because they were M.L.As. and M.Ps. at the time of their appointment had ceased to be so: The petitioner challenged, the aforesaid order dated 12.1.1999 on various grounds including the ground that Section 13 of the New Act did not give power to appoint an administrator in-place of the members of the Board to discharge the functions of the Board. 3. The learned Single judge dismisses the petition with certain observations. 3. The learned Single judge dismisses the petition with certain observations. The learned Single Judge held that though there is no specific provision for appointing an Administrator in the New Act, there was no provision to the contrary also, prohibiting such an appointment. Ultimately the petition was dismissed expressing hope and trust that the Government shall constitute the New Wakf Board as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from 12.1.1999. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner had filed this appeal. 4. Shri Shishodia, learned counsel for the appellant took us through provisions of the Old and New Wakf Act and submitted that the impugned order passed by the State Government could not be justified looking to the provisions of both the Acts. He also submitted that the order was mafa fide passed to oust a duly nominated body replacing it with a bureaucrat as Administrator. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that under the New Act and Wakf Board is a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal with power to acquire and hold property and to transfer any such property subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and it could be the said name sue and be sued. It was further pointed out that the Constitution of the Board was on democratic lines ensuring representation for each of the sections of the Muslim community from a broad section of professions and vocations. According to the learned counsel such a body cannot be handed over to a Bureaucrat even for a single day. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if of necessity some arrangement for discharging the functions of the Board is to be made till the New Board is legally constituted, only a body of persons which was earlier legally discharging the functions of the Board should be asked to continue in the interregnum till the New Board is constituted but such necessity cannot empower the State Government to handover the institution to a Bureaucrat. The learned counsel also submitted that it is not a case where an Old Body is trying to continue by hook or crook after the expiry of its term but in fact the petitioner himself had been trying hard to get the New Board constituted. The learned counsel also submitted that it is not a case where an Old Body is trying to continue by hook or crook after the expiry of its term but in fact the petitioner himself had been trying hard to get the New Board constituted. He pointed out that the petitioner had annexed letters dated 3.2.1997 and 15.12.1998 in which he had exhorted authorities to constitute the New Board as the interim arrangement was being continued for quite a long time. In letter dated 3.2.1997 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Revenue of the State Government the petitioner had expressed his embarrassment at certain people holding the petitioner responsible for being interested in continuing the interim arrangement when it fact he was pressing for early constitution of the Board. In letter dated 15.12.1998 the petitioner had catalogued the letters he had written to the authorities for getting the Board reconstituted. Actually, in this letter the petitioner had given ultimatum by writing that because of his other preoccupations it would not be possible for him to continue as Chairman of the Wakf Board after 31.3.1999 and even if the Board is not reconstituted by then he would not be able to discharge the functions as the Chairman of the Board thereafter. 5. Shri R.L. Jangid, learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand justified the order and submitted that after the expiry of the term of the earlier Board its Chairman or members had no right to continue in office. According to him the State Government passed the order to remove the anomaly of the old Board continuing even after three years of the expiry of its term. 6. The peculiar feature of this case is that the term of the earlier Board expired on 2.1.1996 a day after the New Wakf Act came into force. The Order extending the term of the Old Board till the reconsideration of Board- was issued on 2.1.1996 i.e. after the New Wakf Act had come into force. This was said to have been done in purported exercise of powers under section 19 of the New Act as an interim arrangement. The question therefore is as to whether the State Government was empowered by the New Wakf Act or by any other enabling provisions to pass such an order and when such an order was passed it could be rescinded before the New Board is reconstituted. The question therefore is as to whether the State Government was empowered by the New Wakf Act or by any other enabling provisions to pass such an order and when such an order was passed it could be rescinded before the New Board is reconstituted. The other point which falls for determination is whether the New Wakf Act permits appointment of an Administrator to discharge functions of the Wakf Board in such a situation. 7. Section 9(1) of the Wakf Act, 1954 (here after called as 'the Old Act') empowered the State Government to establish a Board of Wakf under such name as may be specified in the notification to be published in the Official Gazette. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 declared that the Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire and hold property and to transfer any such property subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and shall be the said name sue and be sued. The Old Act did not provide for the term of the Board as such because obviously it had to be a continuous body. However, Section 12 provided for the term of office of the members to be 5 years. Section 12 of the Old Act reads as under : Section 12. Term of Office. - The members of the Board shall hold office for five years : Provided that a member shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term of office, continue to hold office until the appointment of his successor is notified in the Official Gazette." 8. Section 17 of the Old Act provided for resignation of Chairman and Members. It reads as under:- "Section 17. Resignation of Chairman and Members. - The Chairman or any other member may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the State Government : Provided that the Chairman or the members shall continue in office until the appointment of his successor is notified in the Official Gazette." 9. Section 18 provided for removal of Chairman and members and Section 19 provided for filling of a vacancy for the remaining period of the term of member vacating office. Section 18 provided for removal of Chairman and members and Section 19 provided for filling of a vacancy for the remaining period of the term of member vacating office. Section 20 of the Act provided that no act or proceeding of the Board would be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy amongst its members or any defect in the constitution there of. 10. Section 13 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter called as 'the New Act') provides for establishment of a Board of Wakf under such name as may be specified in the notification. Sub-section (3) of Section 13 provides for incorporation of the Board and declares that it shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire and hold property and to transfer any such property subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and shall by the said name sue and be sued. Section 15 provides that the members of the Board shall hold office for a term of five years but does not provide as provided by Section 12 of the Old Act that notwithstanding the expiration of the term of office members could continue to hold office until the appointment of their successor. Section 19 of the New Act provides that the Chairperson or any other member may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the State Government provided that the Chairperson or the member shall continue in office until the appointment of his successor is notified in the Official Gazette. Section 20 of the New Act provides for removal of the Chairperson and the members. Section 21 of the New Act relates to filling of vacancies and provides that when the seat of a member becomes vacant by his removal, resignation, death or otherwise, a new member shall be appointed in his place and such member shall hold office so long as the member whose place he fills would have been entitled to hold office, if such vacancy had not occurred. Section 22 of the New Act provides that no act or proceeding of the Board shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy amongst its members or any defect in the constitution there of. 11. Section 22 of the New Act provides that no act or proceeding of the Board shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy amongst its members or any defect in the constitution there of. 11. Thus we find that the provisions of the Old and the New Act so far as constitution of the Board, the term of its members, removal of the members and filling up vacancies are parimateria except for the proviso to Section 12 of the Old Act which is not repeated in the Section 15 of the New Act. There is no fixed term given to the Board as such but the members of the Board have been given a term of five years. In case of resignation of Chairman/Chairperson and members of the Board, both the Acts provide that the Chairman/Chairperson or the member who has resigned shall continue in office until the appointment of his successor is notified in the Official Gazette. Both the Acts do not provide for supersession of the entire Board and its replacement by an Administrator. The New Act is silent as to what would happen on the expiry of the term of office of the members. This is a lacuna which has given rise to the controversy in this case. 12. Thus viewed, we find the order issued by the State Government on 2.1.1996 continuing the term of the members of the Board till new Chairperson and-the members take over to be substantially in-order. Though the language of the notification dated 2.1.1996 Ex.P/1 to the petition is defective in the sense that it speaks of the Board as whole and not of the Chairman/ Chairperson or individual members as such. Actually, it was not even necessary to issue such an order of extension because under both the Acts the Chairman /Chairperson and the member could continue in office after their resignation (in this case the expiry of their term) till the new Chairman /Chairperson and members enter office. We also conclude that there being no provision for appointment of an administrator replacing the entire body of the Board the appointment of Administrator by order dated 12.1.1999 was illegal and without authority of law. 13. We also conclude that there being no provision for appointment of an administrator replacing the entire body of the Board the appointment of Administrator by order dated 12.1.1999 was illegal and without authority of law. 13. However, looking to the fact that the learned Single Judge has given six months time to reconstitute the Board which would expire on 11.7.1999 and looking to the fact that the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge was not stayed in this appal as also looking to the fact that the appellant himself had in his letter dated 15.12.1998 Annexure.P/4 to the petition to the then State Minister for Wakf, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur had in clear terms stated that beyond 31.3.1999 it would not be possible for him to continue to discharge the functions of the Chairman of the Board. We do not find it just and proper to quash the order appointing the Administrator. Moreover, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government on the directions of the Government in this appeal it has been stated that the process of Election for the Constitution of the Board under section 14(2) of the Act of 1995 has already been started and as per the programme the process will be completed before 11.7.1999 the outer limit given by the learned Single Judge for constitution of the Board.In view of all this, we dispose of this appeal accepting the assurance of the State Government that it shall complete the process of reconstitution of the Board up to 11.7.1999. Needless to add, immediately on the reconstitution of the Board the Administrator shall cease to function.Application disposed of. *******