VASUDEV SHENOY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are in occupation of a building belonging to Wakf Board. This property originally belonged to a Trustee represented by its Managing Trustee H.E. Mohammed Babu Sail. It was later declared as a Wakf property. According to the petitioners, they have been in occupation of this building for the last 14 years and on 17-10-1986 the Kerala Wakf Board published a notification for the sale of the building in question. The notification specified that there could be either separate tenders or a composite tender. Petitioners submitted tenders forgetting their respective portions of property which is possessed by them. Initially the Wakf Board was prepared to accept the tender but later they re-tendered for the whole land and building. One Gopala Pai Reveendra Nath Pai submitted a tender and the same was accepted. The land and buildings were given in his favour. Petitioners preferred an appeal before the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Trivandrum. Petitioners wanted the Government to exercise the power vested on the Government under S.63 and 64 of the Wakf Act, 1954. Petitioners were intimated that they were not entitled to get any benefit under the Wakf Act and they were directed to approach the Munsiff Court under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. One of the petitioners then filed O.P. No. 479/1989 contending that there was violation of the fundamental rights under Art.21 of the Constitution in rejecting the tender offered by the petitioners. That original petition was dismissed vide Ext. P1.

(2.) Petitioners allege that as the first respondent, the Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Law has not issued a notification under proviso to S.1(3) of Act 69 of 1984 bringing into force S.63B of the Wakf Act. Petitioner contends that S.63 B of the Wakf Act cannot be invoked by the petitioner and this Court shall issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to issue a notification as envisaged under proviso to S.1(3) of the Wakf Act. Ext. P3 is the representation submitted by the petitioners to the first respondent.

(3.) 1 heard the petitioners' counsel. Counsel for the petitioners pray that this Court shall issue an order in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issue a notification under proviso to S.1(3) of the Wakf Act. The request of the petitioners cannot be granted. The Wakf Act is a centrally enacted legislation. Under S.1 of the Wakf Act 1954 the Central Government is authorised to notify the commencement of the Act. Admittedly no notification has been issued by Central Govt. regarding the commencement of S.63 of the Act. It is almost a settled position that no court would issue a writ of mandamus or order in the nature of writ of mandamus asking the legislature to pass an enactment. Applying the same rule, the Court also shall not issue any direction to the rule making authority to pass any delegated legislation.