The court cannot compel the government to enforce a provision at its discretion.

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 for getting 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 Ss.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 there presentation submitted by the petitioners to the first respondent.

3. I heard the petitioners' counsel. Counsel forthe 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 isa centrally enacted legislation. Under S.1 ofthe 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 llhe 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.

4. A question of similar nature came before the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982(1) SCC 275). The question that was considered was whether the failure of the Central Government to bring S.3 of the 44th Amendment is mala fide and whether the Court would be justified in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the executives to enforce the provisions, if not done, within reasonable time. The Court held that:

"The Parliament having left to the unfettered judgment of the Central Government the question as regards the time for bringing the provisions of the 44th Amendment into force, it is not for the Court to compel the Government to do that which, according to the mandate of the Parliament, lies in its discretion to do when it considers it opportune to do it. The Executive is responsible to the Parliament and Parliament does not irretrievably lost its power to bring the Amendment into force by reason of the empowerment in favour of the Central Government to bring it into force".

The Supreme Court was of the view that the Court cannot is