- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) SECTION 43, U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act, is very wide in its terms, and the State Government's power to issue direction is not confined to matters of policy as is the case in most other statutes. Learned counsel has relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge in Syed Anwar Jamil v. Syed Mushir Ahmad, Civil Revision No. 1561 of 1978 decided on 2-4-80 a copy of which has been produced before us. That case merely lays down that even after a direction has been issued by the State Government under section 43 for removal of a person from the office of Mutwalli the Board is bound to follow the procedure laid in SECTION 55 of the Act before passing the final order. It does not therefore assist the petitioner. The decision in Jamia Masjia Magadi Town v. Karnatak Board of Waqfs, AIR 1981 Karnataka 37 is also of no assistance to the petitioner. The directions given to the Board in annexure 3 are only restrictions to operate on the Board during the period between the "expiry of its normal term and the constitution of the new Board. They are thus in the nature of temporary safeguards to protect the interest of the incoming body (namely, the Board as may be reconstituted) to save it from the consequences of long-term commitments and unreviewable judicial and quasi judicial orders being made during the short interregnum by the outgoing body. We thus find no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed in limine. Soon after the pronouncement of the judgment in the case, learned counsel for the petitioner made an oral prayer for certificate under Article 133 read with Article 134-A of the Constitution. In our opinion the case does not involve any substantial question of law of general importance which requires to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such the prayer for certificate is refused.;