Judgment :- 1. An extent of one ground, 1710 sq. feet of land in a prime commercial locality in the city of Chennai, situated at R.S. 1441, 171. Triplicane High Road, Madras-5 is a Wakf property, belonging to Peer Shah Khadri Durga. The Muthavalli of the Wakf leased out the property to one Janab K.S. Allepy for a period of 50 years, under a registered document, dated 16.2.1951. The lessee appears to have, thereafter, put up a building on that leasehold property. A suit (O.S. No. 6699 of 1968) was later brought by the Special Officer of the Wakf, acting for the Wakf Board, for possession of the property, on the ground that the lease itself was void. During the pendency of the suit, the lessee expired. His legal representatives were brought on record and they invoked the City Tenants Protection Act and sought an order permitting them to purchase the leasehold property at the then prevailing market value. The value of the land was determined by the Court at Rs. 16,000/- per ground. Time was given to the legal representatives of the lessee to make the deposit on or before 18.11.1977. That deposit, however, was not made within that time, but was put into Court two years later, by which time the right to purchase the property had been lost. Several years later, the building that had been put up by the lessee on the land was purchased by the petitioners herein (Raichand J. Shah and three others). They also purported to have purchased the leasehold interest in the land that, allegedly, belonged to the legal representatives of the original lessee. I am informed by the learned Additional Advocate General that the consideration for the purchase of the building was Rs. 3 lakhs, the purchase having been effected in the year 1987, and the consideration paid for the purchase of the leasehold interest of the legal representatives of the original lessee was Rs. 10,000/-. I am informed by the learned Additional Advocate General that the consideration for the purchase of the building was Rs. 3 lakhs, the purchase having been effected in the year 1987, and the consideration paid for the purchase of the leasehold interest of the legal representatives of the original lessee was Rs. 10,000/-. After such purchase of the building and after the legal representatives of the original lessee had lost their right to purchase the land by reason of their noncompliance with the order of the Court, and after a period of nearly 40 years of the 50 year period of the lease had elapsed, the Wakf Board entertained the request made by the petitioners herein for the sale of the leasehold land to them and without recording any reasons as to why it was desirable to alienate the valuable land belonging to the Wakf situated in the commercial hub of the city and also without recording any reason as to how they considered the amount which they directed the petitioners to pay viz., the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was the proper or the best value that could be obtained by the Wakf. A resolution was passed by the Wakf Board on 30.5.1991 in Resolution No. 53/91 that the land be alienated in favour of the petitioners for a consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs. The resolution also directed the Secretary of the Wakf Board to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioners. It may be noticed here that the Wakf Board did not call for any offer from anyone else who may have been interested in the purchase of the property and the only offer before the Board was the one that was made by the petitioners. That sum of Rs. 3 lakhs is stated to have been paid by the petitioners after the resolution. 2. Before any sale deed could be executed in favour of the petitioners, the matter was brought to the notice of the Government, by the Secretary of the Wakf Board, who appears to have addressed a letter to the Government in July 1991. The Government, thereafter, made an order on 9.9.1991, directing the Wakf Board to keep the resolution dated 30.5.1991 in abeyance. The Government, thereafter, made an order on 9.9.1991, directing the Wakf Board to keep the resolution dated 30.5.1991 in abeyance. That order of the Government was challenged by the petitioners in W.P. No. 13992 of 1991, in which a learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 20.11.1991, directed the Government to disclose to the petitioners the reasons for keeping the resolution in abeyance and also to put the petitioners on notice before passing any order on the question of validity of the sale sanctioned by the Wakf Board. 3. After that order of the Court, a notice was given to the petitioners by the Government on 12.8.1992, wherein the Government set out all the facts and also informed the petitioners, inter alia, as under: — “The decision taken by the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Wakf Board to sell the said property for the consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- in Resolution No. 53/91 dated 30.5.91 is far below the guideline value fixed by the Registering Authority and selling the said property for such a low price is against the interest of the Wakf.” By the same letter, the petitioners were also informed that “The resolution of the Board to sell the said property at such a low price is certainly not in the interest of the Wakf. This was the reason which impelled the Government to issue the order directing the Secretary to the Tamil Nadu Wakf Hoard not to execute the sale deed and keep the resolution No. 53/91, dated 30.5.1991 of the Wakf Board in abeyance.” The petitioners responded to that notice setting out the reasons as to why the Wakf Board should be allowed to proceed with the sale of the property in their favour. The communication, which was sent to the petitioners by the Government thereafter was only on 12.1.1994 in which the petitioners were informed as under: — “I am directed to invite attention to the letters cited. I am to convey that the Government have issued directions to the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board under Section 63 of the Wakf Act, 1954 that the resolution relating to the sale and lease of Wakf properties passed by the erstwhile, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, including resolution No. 53/91 relating to sale of land measuring one ground and 1710 sq.ft. I am to convey that the Government have issued directions to the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board under Section 63 of the Wakf Act, 1954 that the resolution relating to the sale and lease of Wakf properties passed by the erstwhile, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, including resolution No. 53/91 relating to sale of land measuring one ground and 1710 sq.ft. in R.S. No. 1441 at 171, Triplicane High Road, Madras-5, be placed before the present Tamil Nadu Wakf Board for reconsideration. I am to state that the present Tamil Nadu Wakf Board while consideripg the issue will give you an opportunity to present your case at the appropriate time before taking a final decision in the matter.” Even prior to the said letter of the State Government, the Wakf Board had given a notice to the petitioners on 31.5.1993, informing the petitioners of a communication, dated 24.5.1993, which the Board had received from the Government under which the Board had been directed to place the matter relating to sale of this property before the present Board for reconsideration. The petitioners had also been informed that the matter was being placed before the Board on 29.6.1993 for such reconsideration. It called upon the petitioners to appear before the Board on that day with relevant records. The petitioners, apparently, did appear and gave a representation, which inter alia , stated that they had learnt that the Government had made an order on 12.4.1993 directing the Board to execute a sale deed in their favour that they had not been supplied copies of the letters dated 12.4.1993 and 24.5.1993 issued by the Government to the Wakf Board and the copies of those two letters to supplied to them. More important, it was their assertion in that reply that the Government had no power to issue the subsequent letter of 24.5.1993 after having issued the letter of 12.4.1993, by which the resolution of the Wakf Board had been confirmed by the Government. 4. It is now necessary to advert to those two letters of 12.4.1993 and 24.5.1993. The petitioners themselves have produced a copy of the letter, dated 12.4.1993 though, according to them, such copy had not been made available to them either by the Government or by the Wakf Board. 4. It is now necessary to advert to those two letters of 12.4.1993 and 24.5.1993. The petitioners themselves have produced a copy of the letter, dated 12.4.1993 though, according to them, such copy had not been made available to them either by the Government or by the Wakf Board. In that letter of 12.4.1993, it is stated that the sale deed in favour of the petitioners may be arranged to be executed by the Wakf Board, pursuant to the resolution that had been passed for the sale of the land to the petitioners. 5. I directed the Government, at the instance of the petitioners, to produce the relevant original files. The same have been produced before me. It has been pointed out to me by the learned Additional Advocate General that two days after the issue of the letter dated 12.4.1993 to the Wakf Board, a letter by the Government, which was at no point of time communicated to the petitioners either by the Government or by the Wakf Board, directed that the direction given in the letter of 12.4.1993 be kept in abeyance. That letter is dated 19.5.1993. Thereafter, the Government issued a letter, dated 24.5.1993 in which reference was made to the two earlier letters of 12.4.1993 and 19.5.1993. That letter stated that it had been brought to the notice of the Government that the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Wakf Board had passed resolutions regarding the sale and lease of various Wakf properties for very low price, which was detrimental to the interest of the Wakf and that the same are not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Government proceeded to record that the members of the previous Wakf Board had committed mistake or error in passing that resolution and it was open to the subsequent Board to look into the validity of the earlier resolutions. To that letter was annexed a list of 41 resolutions that had been passed by the Wakf Board in relation to various Wakf properties. The Government directed that all those resolutions be placed before the present Board for reconsideration, with a further direction that the Government be intimated the result of the action taken. 6. To that letter was annexed a list of 41 resolutions that had been passed by the Wakf Board in relation to various Wakf properties. The Government directed that all those resolutions be placed before the present Board for reconsideration, with a further direction that the Government be intimated the result of the action taken. 6. The petitioners have in these petitions challenged the order of the Government dated 12.1.1994 and have also sought for a mandamus directing the respondents to furnish copies of letters dated, 12.4.1993 and 24.5.1993 to them. 7. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Habibulla Basha, that the manner in which the Government has acted was wholly unwarranted by any of the provisions of the Wakf Act or by the terms of the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition, which the petitioners had filed earlier. It was submitted that the orders made on 12.4.1993 and 24.5.1993 being orders which related to the property in respect of which the petitioners claimed their right to purchase, copies of the same should have been furnished to the petitioners. It was further submitted that the Government having j admittedly made an order on 12.4.1993, which order, though not communicated to the petitioners, would still bind the Government and that order so made was incapable of being reviewed by the Government. Learned counsel, in this context, submitted that the fact that the order dated 12.4.1993 was not communicated to the petitioners was not of any consequence as, once the order was made, that would bind the Government and in the absence of express power to review, that order could not have been modified in any way by any subsequent order. 8. Learned counsel in this context referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kuntesh Gupta v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya [ (1987) 4 SCC 525 ], wherein, at paragraph 11, the Apex Court has observed thus: — “It is now well established that a quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction.” 9. The other case relied upon was the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji ( 1971 (3) SCC 844 ). The other case relied upon was the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji ( 1971 (3) SCC 844 ). The Court therein at paragraph 4, made the following observation: “The order passed by Mr. Mankodi, in law amounted to a review of the order made by Saurashtra Government. It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication.” 10. Learned counsel submitted that the power exercised by the Government in this case is a power which can only be traced to Section 63 of the Wakf Act, 1954 and that Section does not provide for a power to review the orders made by the State Government. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the order made by the Government on 12.4.1993 and sent to the Wakf Board must be regarded as final order, after the passing of which, the Government was denuded of authority to deal with the subject matter of that order, even though that order was one addressed to the Wakf Board and not to the petitioners. 11. Learned counsel submitted that Section 63 of the Act merely enables the Government to give general or special directions as the State Government thinks fit. That power, it was submitted, would not enable the Government to go on giving instructions from time to time revising and rerevising its orders. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that there is a clear distinction among policy, procedure and decisions. Section 62 of the Act, it is submitted, deals with the policy and enables the Central Government to give directions on questions of policy. Section 63, according to the learned counsel, only enables the Government to give directions regarding procedure and does not enable it to interfere with any specific decision taken by the Wakf Board. 12. Section 62 of the Act, it is submitted, deals with the policy and enables the Central Government to give directions on questions of policy. Section 63, according to the learned counsel, only enables the Government to give directions regarding procedure and does not enable it to interfere with any specific decision taken by the Wakf Board. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted in this context that the Wakf Board is an autonomous body and is entrusted with the functions enumerated in Section 15 of the Act, which Section, in sub-section (2) clause (j) thereof empowers the Board to santion in accordance with the Muslim Law any transfer of the immovable property of a Wakf by way of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange or lease as required by Section 36-A, provided that no such sanction shall be given unless two thirds of the members of the Board vote in favour of such transaction. Section 36-A stipulates that sales, gifts, mortgages or exchanges of immovable properties belonging to Wakf as also lease for a period exceeding three years, in case of agricultural land, or lease for a period exceeding one year in the case of nonagricultural land, shall not be valid without the previous sanction of the Board. It must be noticed here that section 36-A was introduced only in the year 1964 by Section 11 of the Central Act 34/64. 13. The Board having passed the resolution within the jurisdiction vested in it and in respect of a matter which it was authorised to deal with, that decision of the Board, counsel submitted, must be regarded as final and that decision was not one which was capable of being interfered with by the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 63 of the Act. 14. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, submitted that in this case we are dealing with property which belongs to a Trust and the maximisation of the yield from the properties belonging to the Trust is a consideration of paramount importance and any default in relation thereto by the Wakf Board is a default which is capable of being corrected by the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 63 of the Act. The Board here, admittedly, had resolved to sell the property, which was under no compulsion to be sold and for the sale of which there was no pressing need of any kind. The sale was to a favoured buyer at a favoured price, no effort having been made by the Board to ascertain the prevailing market value and to ensure that such market value was realised by the Board by the sale of the land. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners herein had no right at all in relation to the land as the lease was not in their favour and that the persons who had claimed to have sold the leasehold interest in the property had themselves lost their rights to buy the land by reason of the default committed by them in depositing the monies, for which the Court had permitted them to purchase the property, way back in the year 1977. The Board, it was also pointed out, had taken no effort to ascertain the market value which prevailed in the year 1991. The procedure followed by the Board was patently one which did not advance the interest of the Wakf, but, on the other hand, caused serious detriment to its interest. Learned counsel also pointed out that the guideline value of the property even in the year 1991 was more than seven times the amount for which the Board resolved to sell the property to the petitioners. The fact that the guideline value was Rs. 21 lakhs was not disputed even by the petitioners at any point of time. It was thus evident that the proposed sale was at a gross undervaluation in favour of persons, who had no right at all to secure the sale of the property in their favour. They had no interest in the Wakf. They were not the original lessees. They were strangers, who came on the scene after nearly 37 years had elapsed in the agreed period of lease and were seeking to purchase the freehold when the balance period of the lease was about 10 years or less and at the end of which period the Wakf Board would have been entitled to secure possession and to reenter the land. 15. 15. Learned counsel, in support of some of his submissions, invited my attention to the case of Kedar Nath Bahl v. State of Punjab and others ( AIR 1979 SC 220 ), more particularly, what was said by the Court at paragraph 21. On the facts of the case before it, the Court in that case held that certain notings of the Chief Minister, which were in favour of the petitioner could not be enforced as those notings had not been communicated to the petitioner and the Chief Minister had by a subsequent order given new directions, which had the effect of erasing the earlier direction. 16. Learned counsel also relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Committee of Management of Pachaiyappas Trust v. Official Trustee of Madras and another (1994) 1 SCC 475 = 1994 1 L.W. 198, wherein the Court emphasised the imperative hand for ensuring that Trust properties are dealt with with utmost care, and in a manner which is transparent and which would ensure the realisation of the best value. The Court emphasised the need for alienating such Trust properties only by way of public auction. The Supreme Court in that case set aside an order which had been made in favour of a purchaser, without inviting bids from others, and without considering what the best price for the property alienated would be by making sufficient efforts to ascertain the market rate. 17. Learned counsel also relied on an unreported judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 3338 of 1983, dated 19th July, 1991, wherein the Court rejected an argument that had been advanced before it that the Wakf Board had no right to rescind a resolution once it is passed. The Court observed that if the members of the previous Board had Committed any mistake, it would be open to the subsequent Board comprised of different members to look into the validity of the earlier resolution. 18. Having regard to the nature of the arguments advanced by the parties, it is necessary to first advert to the scheme of the Wakf Act, 1954, in so far as it concerns the relative positions of the Wakf Board constituted under the Act, the Central Government and the State Government. 18. Having regard to the nature of the arguments advanced by the parties, it is necessary to first advert to the scheme of the Wakf Act, 1954, in so far as it concerns the relative positions of the Wakf Board constituted under the Act, the Central Government and the State Government. The preamble to the Act states that it is an Act to provide for the better administration and supervision of Wakfs. Section 4 provides for a survey of the Wakfs being carried out by a commissioner appointed by the State Government. Section 5 and 6 require the Board, to which the report is forwarded, to examine the same, and have the disputes decided by the Court by instituting suits therefor. Section 8-A provides for the establishment of the Central Wakf Council. Section 9 provides for the establishment of Wakf Board. Section 10 sets out the composition of the Board. Section 15, which is of some importance, sets out the functions of the Board. Section 15 (1) reads as under: — “Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the general superintendence of all Wakfs in a State in relation to all matters, except those which are expressly required by this Act to be dealt with by the Wakf Commissioner, shall vest in the Board established for the State; and it shall be the duty of the Board so to exercise its powers under this Act as 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 Wakf were created or intended: Provided that in exercising its powers under this Act in respect of any Wakf, the Board shall act in conformity with the directions of the Wakf, the purposes of the Wakf and any usage or custom of the Wakf sanctioned by the Muslim law.” Sub-section (2) of Section 15 enumerates certain specific functions without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred on the Board under sub-section (1). As already noticed, sub-clause (j) to sub-section (2) of Section 15 empowers the Board to sanction any transfer of immovable property of a Wakf by way of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange, or lease. 19. The primary function of the Board is set out in Section 15 (1). As already noticed, sub-clause (j) to sub-section (2) of Section 15 empowers the Board to sanction any transfer of immovable property of a Wakf by way of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange, or lease. 19. The primary function of the Board is set out in Section 15 (1). The power given to it under the Act is to ensure that the Wakfs under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered. The discharge of that duty requires that the Wakf Board performs its functions in relation to the immovable properties owned by the Wakfs with great care to ensure that they yield maximum income or the alienation thereof results in the receipt of best possible consideration, so that the objects for which the Wakfs have been established can be more effectively carried out. 20. The power vested in the Wakf Boards so constituted under the Wakf Act is a power which itself is in the nature of a trust and even in the exercise of that power, the Board does not enjoy unlimited authority. The more important powers of the Boards are made subject, in the Act, to the previous sanction of the Government and the functions of the Board, in general, are made subject to the power of the government to issue directions. Even the policy to be evolved by the Board is a policy which the Central Government is empowered to lay down. 21. The power of the Board to borrow funds is made subject to the previous sanction of the Government. The control and exercise that the Board has over the funds is again subject to the Rules that may be made by the State Government. Accounts of the Board are to be audited only by auditors appointed by the State Government. By Section 52 of the Act, the State Government is entitled to call for explanations, after examining the auditors report, and to make appropriate orders on that report. 22. Section 62 of the Act empowers the Central Government to issue such directions as it may think fit on questions of policy that may be evolved by a Board and for that purpose, the Central Government may call for any periodic or other report or information from any Board through the Government of the State concerned. 22. Section 62 of the Act empowers the Central Government to issue such directions as it may think fit on questions of policy that may be evolved by a Board and for that purpose, the Central Government may call for any periodic or other report or information from any Board through the Government of the State concerned. Sub-Section (2) of Section 62 enjoins on the Board a duty to be guided by the directions issued by the Central Government in the performance of its functions. 23. By Section 63 of the Act:, power is given to the State Government to issue directions. That provision reads as under: — “Subject to any directions on questions of policy issued under Section 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.” 24. Section 64 (1) empowers the State Government to supersede the Board. Sub-section (1) of Section 64 reads thus: — “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, or has wilfully and without sufficient cause failed to comply with any direction issued by the Central Government under Section 62 or the State Government under Section 63 or if the State Government is satisfied on a consideration of any report submitted after annual inspection, that the Board s continuance is likely to be injurious to the interests of the Wakfs in the State 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.” 25. Section 68 of the Act, which enables the Board to frame regulations, is made subject to the previous sanction being obtained by the Board from the State Government. Section 67 enables the State Government to make Rules to carry out purpose of the Act, including the regulation of the functions of the board. Section 68 of the Act, which enables the Board to frame regulations, is made subject to the previous sanction being obtained by the Board from the State Government. Section 67 enables the State Government to make Rules to carry out purpose of the Act, including the regulation of the functions of the board. 26. It is evident from an examination of the scheme of the Act that the Wakf Board, far from being autonomous in all matters in relation to which it is required to make decisions is, at all times, subject to the supervision and Control of the State Government and, in relation to matters of policy, by the Central Government. Resolutions made by the Board, which in the opinion of the State Government are detrimental to the interest of the Wakfs, are certainly capable of being interfered with and in respect of which directions are capable of being given by the State Government, for which express provision is made in Section 63 of the Act. The State Government is not required to be a helpless spectator when the Board makes wrong decisions and is not required to allow the beneficiary of such wrong decisions to enjoy the fruits thereof. The power of the State is not limited in relation to the Board to only that of supersession for which provision is made in Section 64. The State Government has been given the p ower under Section 63 to give general or special directions to Board “in the performance of its functions” and such directions may be given whenever the State Government “thinks fit” and the Board, when it receives such directions, “shall comply with such direction”. 27. The position of the Board is, therefore, clearly one which is subordinate to the State Government in respect of the matters referred to in the several provisions of the Act. 28. It was, therefore, well within the power of the State Government that it considered it to be necessary to keep in abeyance the resolution passed by the Wakf Board. It was also equally within the power of the State Government to direct the Wakf Board to reconsider the resolution which the Board had already passed, if the Government was of the view that the resolutions were detrimental to the interest of the concerned Wakfs. 29. It was also equally within the power of the State Government to direct the Wakf Board to reconsider the resolution which the Board had already passed, if the Government was of the view that the resolutions were detrimental to the interest of the concerned Wakfs. 29. In this case, the reason for the Government keeping the resolution of the Wakf Board in abeyance was communicated to the petitioners and it was stated therein explicitly that the proposed sale of the property to the petitioner was detrimental to the interest of the Wakf as the guideline value of the property was very much more than the amount for which the Board had resolved to sell the property to the petitioners. This Court when it directed the Government to communicate to the petitioners the reasons for the order keeping the resolution in abeyance had not directed the Government to ratify the resolution nor had it directed the Government not to direct the Board to reconsider the matter. The Government had complied with this Courts order by disclosing the reasons for keeping the resolution in abeyance. It had also given notice to the petitioners and had given opportunity to make a representation as to whether the resolution needed to be interfered with or not. 30. The communication sent by the State Government to the Wakf Board on 12.4.1993 is a communication which seems to be shrouded in mystery. The files produced by the Government did not show any reason whatsoever as to why that letter came to be issued and there is no note which preceded the issuance of that letter setting out any reason for the Government taking the view that notwithstanding the guideline value being over Rs. 21 lakhs and no opportunity having been given to the public at large to compete for the purchase of the property, the sale should be effected to the petitioners for a low sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. That letter was not one, for which the Board was directed to intimate the content to the petitioners. The Board was under no duty to do so. The Government itself realised the error in having allowed such a letter to be issued and by communication dated 19.5.1993 directed that the letter of 12.4.1993 be kept in abeyance. 3 lakhs. That letter was not one, for which the Board was directed to intimate the content to the petitioners. The Board was under no duty to do so. The Government itself realised the error in having allowed such a letter to be issued and by communication dated 19.5.1993 directed that the letter of 12.4.1993 be kept in abeyance. Thereafter, in the communication dated 24.5.1993, the State Government, after referring to the letters of 12.4.1993 and 19.5.1993, directed that the resolution in question as also 40 other resolutions, which the Government considered to be resolutions which were not in the interest of the Wakfs concerned and which resolutions concerned alienation of the properties belonging to the Wakf, be reconsidered by the Wakf Board, which was functioning at that time. 31. The argument advanced for the petitioners that by issuing the subsequent order on 24.5.1993, the Government was reviewing the earlier order made by it which it had no power to review is not an argument which can be accepted. The Government was duty bound to ensure that the Wakf Board functions in a manner which would subserve the purpose of the Act and the properties belonging to the Wakfs are not given away without following proper procedures which would ensure the maximum realisation. The fact that an erroneous communication had been sent would not result in a vested right in the petitioners nor would it result in a fetter on the power of the Government to correct its own error especially in a matter where properties belonging to the Trust are involved and the Government itself is in the position of a Trustee in respect of the properties owned by the Wakfs and which are required to be supervised by the Wakf Board. 32. The power given to the Government under Section 63 of the Act is a very wide power. No limitation of the kind suggested by the petitioners need be read into it. The width of the power must necessarily be maintained in order to enable the Government to effectively interfere with the improper disposition of Wakf properties by Wakf Boards. The Government by the wordings used in Section 63 has been given power to “issue directions”. Such directions may be issued “from time to time”. The directions may be “general or special directions”. The Government by the wordings used in Section 63 has been given power to “issue directions”. Such directions may be issued “from time to time”. The directions may be “general or special directions”. The sole judge of the nature of the direction to be given is the State Government, which may give such directions “as it thinks fit”. The directions to be given are in relation to “the performance of the functions” of the Board. The reference to “functions” in Section 63 is to the functions enumerated in Section 15 and the power ‘to give directions” would encompass directions in relation to the performance of all or any other functions referred to in Section 15. The duty of the Board when such directions are given is “to comply”. The Board has no option in the matter and it must comply with the directions given by the State Government. 33. The nature of the power vested in an authority under the Statute has necessarily to be gathered from examining the object for which the statute was enacted, the purpose sought to be achieved, the nature of the power conferred, the authority on whom the power is conferred and the purpose for which it has to be exercised. The power conferred on the Government under Section 63 is a power which can, and is, required to be regarded as a power which would enable the Government to be regarded as a power which would enable the government to review the orders that the Government may make in the nature of directions. Such a power to review must be regarded as implicit, having regard to the purpose and the object for which the power is given to the Government. It would be a travesty of law if an erroneous order which on the face of it conveys a wholly uncalled for and unfair advantage to a person in a Trust property is detrimental to the interest of the Trust, is allowed to be enforced by the process of law. Law is not meant to be utilised by persons who receive such unfair advantages by claiming that the authroity which issued the erroneous order is to be precluded from reconsidering that matter. Law is not meant to be utilised by persons who receive such unfair advantages by claiming that the authroity which issued the erroneous order is to be precluded from reconsidering that matter. Sufficient safegrand is provided by law itself to any aggrieved person, as all such aggrieved persons can invoke the jurisdiction of the Court to correct any injustice that may have occurred by reason of any order made by the Government. But the Government itself is not to be precluded from exercising that power of correcting an error which may have occured while considering a matter in relation to the performance of its functions by the Wakf Board. 34. The prayer of the petitioners for quashing the communication of the Government, dated 12.4.1993, therefore, is not a prayer which can be acceded to. The prayer for furnishing to the petitioners a copy of the order dated 12.4.1993 made by the Government, which has subsequently been, in effect, recalled on 24.5.1993 is also a prayer which cannot be acceded to. Despite the prayer made by the petitioners for furnishing a copy, the petitioners have had no difficulty at all in collecting such a copy themselves as they have produced a copy of that letter as annexure to the writ petition. 35. So far as the petitioners prayer for furnishing a copy of the letter dated 24.5.1993 addressed by the Government to the Wakf Board is concerned, since that document has been referred to by the Wakf Board in its notice sent to the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to a copy of the same and the Government is directed to furnish a copy of that letter of 24.5.1993, to the petitioners. 36. In the result, the petitioners prayer for preventing the Board from proceeding with the reconsideration of the resolution is rejected. The only relief to which the petitioners are entitled is for being furnished with a copy of the letter dated 24.4.1993. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.