JUDGMENT : Ms. Bela M. Trivedi, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 19/11/2015 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent, and seeking further direction to permit the petitioners to continue as the members of the Wakf Board till the new elections for the Board are conducted. 2. At the outset, it is required to be stated that this petition was filed on 24/11/2015, challenging the impugned order dated 19/11/2015. When it was argued before the Coordinate Bench on 26/11/2015, the Coordinate Bench referred the matter to the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for placing it before the Division Bench on the issue involved in case of Shokat Ali Ansari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. In D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.154/1999 decided by the Division Bench on 19th May, 1999. However, the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice has directed to put up before the Single Bench as per roster. Accordingly, the petition has been listed before this Court. 3. The petitioners the former elected/nominated members of the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Board'), have challenged the action of the respondent in discontinuing them as the members of the said Board on completion of their term of five years vide the order dated 19/11/2015. 4. It is sought to be submitted by the learned senior counsel Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma that the petitioners should have been continued to work as the Members of the said Board till the new elections of the Board take place, which was not only the practise being followed by the respondent, but they were also required to be continued as such in view of the order dated 19/5/1999 passed by the Division Bench in case of Shokat Ali Ansari. He further submitted that taking undue advantage of pendency of this petition, the respondent has placed the Additional Director, Minority Commission Incharge of the Wakf Board, which is absolutely illegal in the eye of law. However, the learned AAG Mr. S.K. Gupta for the respondent distinguishing the judgment of Division Bench in case of Shokat Ali Ansari submitted that the State has not appointed any administrator in the instant case, and in any case, the process for election of Members of the Board has already started. 5. However, the learned AAG Mr. S.K. Gupta for the respondent distinguishing the judgment of Division Bench in case of Shokat Ali Ansari submitted that the State has not appointed any administrator in the instant case, and in any case, the process for election of Members of the Board has already started. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the documents on record, it appears that though the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19/11/2015 by filing the petition on 24/11/2015, there was no interim order passed by the Coordinate Bench protecting the tenure of the petitioners which even otherwise had expired on the completion of five years on 25/11/2015. It was sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sharma for the petitioner that because of the reference made by the Coordinate Bench to the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, no interim order was passed by the said Bench. However the fact remains that the said order dated 19/11/2015 has already come into force, and the petitioners have been discontinued as the Members of the said Board. At this juncture, it is required to be noted that as per Section 15 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the term of office of the Members of the Board is for five years. In absence of any provision in the Act permitting them to continue after the expiry of the term of five years as a matter of right, it could not be said that the impugned order passed by the State Government to discontinue the petitioners as the Members of the Board was illegal. It is true that the Division Bench in case of Shokat Ali Ansari has observed interalia that the members could continue in office after their resignation (in this case the expiry of the term) till the new Chairman/Chairperson and members enter office. However it is pertinent to note that in the said case, before the expiry of the term of the Board on 2/1/1996, New Wakf Act, 1995 came into force on 1/1/1996. The petitioner, in the said case, had submitted his resignation, however the State Government had extended the term of the Members of the Board including of the said petitioner. However it is pertinent to note that in the said case, before the expiry of the term of the Board on 2/1/1996, New Wakf Act, 1995 came into force on 1/1/1996. The petitioner, in the said case, had submitted his resignation, however the State Government had extended the term of the Members of the Board including of the said petitioner. Thereafter the State Government rescinded the order by which the extension was granted to the members of Board, and appointed the Deputy Secretary, Irrigation as the Administrator. The said action of appointing Administrator in place of Members of the Board was challenged in the writ petition before the Single Bench. The Single Bench having dismissed the said petition, the intra court appeal was filed by the said petitioner before the Division Bench. Hence the Division Bench, while dealing with the said issue of appointment of administrator, had made the said observation. However the Division Bench while disposing of the said appeal had neither set aside the order of appointment of Administrator, nor had permitted the petitioner of the said petition to continue as the Member of the Board. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the petitioners have already been discontinued as the Members of the Board on the expiry of their term of five years, which is perfectly inconsonance with the provisions of the said Act. It is also pertinent to note that the State Government has not appointed any Administrator in the instant case. The Deputy Director, Minority Commission has been placed Incharge of the Wakf Board to look after the day to day affairs of the Board, and that too for a maximum period of two months till the new elections are conducted as per the order dated 8/12/2015(Annexure-A/4). Under the circumstances, the process of election having already started, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. 6. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. It is expected that the respondent shall conduct the election of the Members of the Board as per the schedule without any further delay. By this order, the stay application and other pending application, if any also stand disposed of.