Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 237 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 13	 1954	 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No. 117 of 1954. B. Sen	 P. K. Chatterjee and section N. Mukherjee	 for the appellant. B. C. Mitter and D. Mukherjee	 for respondent No. 1. 1961. February 6. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH	 J. This appeal is as much without substance	 as it was unnecessary. Hazrat Syed Mastershid Ali Al Quadari (the appellant) is the eldest son of one Hazrat Sahib Syed Shah Mastershid Ali Al Quadari (shortly	 Hazrat Sahib)	 the first Mutawalli of a wakf created on August 9	 1931	 for the maintenance of the shrine of a Muslim Pir in the town of Midnapur. After the death of Hazrat Sahib	 the appellant	 claiming to succeed to his father as Sajjadanashin	 being his eldest son	 made an application To the Commissioner under the Bengal Wakf Act. His younger brother	 Syed Shah Rushaid Ali Al Quadari	 opposed his claim	 the ground being that he was nominated as the succes sor by Hazrat Sahib. While this controversy was afoot	 the Commissioner	 acting under section 40 of the Bengal Wakf Act	 appointed Syed Shah Rasheed Ali Al Quadari (the third son of Hazrat Sahib) as a temporary Mutawalli. The appellant then moved a petition in the Calcutta High Court under article 226 of the Constitution against the appointment	 which was allowed by Sinha	 J. and the order of the Commissioner was set aside. On appeal to the Divisional Bench	 consisting of Chakravarti	 C. J. and Lahiri	 J. (as he then 761 was)	 the order of Sinha	 J. was reversed	 and the petition was dismissed. This appeal has been filed with special leave. It is contended in this appeal that the order of the Commissioner appointing a temporary Mutawalli was illegal	 because under the Rules framed by the Government	 only the Board constituted under the Bengal Wakf Act could make the appointment. This argument	 in our opinion	 is wholly unsound. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court examined the matter at great length in reaching his conclusion; but	 in our opinion	 the reasons can be stated within a narrow compass. We are concerned with sections 40 and 29 of the Bengal Wakf Act. Section 40 reads as follows: " In the case of any Wakf of which there is no Mutwalli or where there appears to the Board to be an impediment to the appointment of amutwalli the Board	 subject to any order of a competent Court	 may appoint for such period as it thinks fit a person to act as Mutwalli. " Section 29 provides: "The Board may	 from time to time	 authorize the Commissioner to exercise and perform	 subject to the control of the Board	 any of the powers and duties conferred or imposed on the Board by or under this Act." On April 24	 1936	 the Board adopted the following resolution : " (2). In exercise of the powers vested in them under Section 29 of the Act this Board resolve that the Commissioner of Wakfs be authorised to exercise and perform	 subject to the control and approval of this Board	 the following powers and duties conferred or imposed on this Board by the sections of the Act mentioned against each case: (c). The powers of this Board under section 40 to appoint a temporary mutwalli. " These two provisions of the Act show only too plainly that a temporary Mutawalli can be appointed either by the Board	 or	 if the powers and duties be 762 delegated to the Commissioner	 by the Commissioner. The appellant contends that the Commissioner can only make a report to the Board	 and the Board alone can make the appointment	 and refers to two Rules framed by Government. These Rules are: "1. If it appears to the Commissioner that there is no mutwalli	 in the case of any wakf	 or that a a vacancy in the office of the mutwalli has been caused by death	 resignation	 retirement or removal of th e former mutwalli	 and a dispute has arisen between two or more rival claimants to the vacancy	 and such dispute is likely to affect the interests of the Wakf	 he may institute an enquiry and report the result thereof to the Board with his recommendation. 2. .On receipt of the report and the recommendation from the Commissioner	 or on its own motion	 the Board may appoint a mutwalli under section 40 of the Act. " It is argued that under the second Rule the Commissioner was bound to make his report and recommendation	 but the Board alone was empowered to appoint a temporary Mutawalli under section 40. The last words of the second Rule	 it is said	 are clear. This is	 no doubt	 true of those cases where the Board has not delegated its functions under section 40 to the Commissioner. Once that delegation has been made	 the Commissioner acts for and on behalf of the Board	 and the Rules cease to apply. The Rules cannot affect the power of the Board to delegate its functions under section 29	 and harmonious construction requires that the Rules should give way	 when there is a delegation of the powers of the Board. The Commissioner was thus competent to make the appointment. Mr. Sen	 however	 contends that the appointment of a temporary Mutawalli could only be made if there was an " impediment " to the appointment of a permanent Mutawalli	 and that there was no impediment to such an appointment but " a challenge to the appellant as a candidate. " The word " impediment " means hindrance or obstruction	 and there was certainly an obstruction to the appointment of a permanent 763 Mutawalli	 while the dispute remained undecided. This point has no force whatever. The question which seemed to have largely engaged ' attention in the High Court	 namely	 whether the delegation was only of powers or also of duties of the Board	 was not argued before us	 though it formed the subject of considerable discussion in the statements of the case. It is without substance. Where powers and duties are interconnected and it is not possible to separate one from the other in such wise that powers may be delegated while duties are retained and vice versa	 the delegation of powers takes with it the duties. The proposition hardly needs authority; but if one were necessary	 reference may be made to Mungoni vs Attomey General of Northern Rhodesia (1). In our opinion	 the appeal has no force whatever. The appellant chose the extraordinary course of dragging the respondents twice to the High Court and again to this Court merely to challenge an order of temporary duration	 while the main controversy remained outstanding for years and could have been decided by now. The appeal fails	 and is dismissed. The appellant shall pay the costs of the respondents	 who have entered appearance. Appeal dismissed.

During controversy between two brothers each of whom claimed to be appointed Mutawalli	 the Commissioner of Wakfs appointed a third brother as a temporary Mutawalli under section 40 of the Bengal Wakf Act	 which appointment was challenged on the ground that the order of the Commissioner appointing a temporary Mutawalli was illegal because under the rules framed by the Government of West Bengal the Board constituted under Bengal Wakf Act could alone make the appointment and the Commissioner could only make a report and recommendation to the Board. Held	 that under the provisions of section 40 read with section 29 of the Bengal Wakf Act	 a temporary Mutawalli can be appointed by the Commissioner to whom the powers and duties have been 760 delegated by the Board. The Rules cannot affect the powers of the Board to delegate its functions under section 29 of the Act to the Commissioner	 and once the delegation is made the rules cease to apply. Held	 further	 that where power and duty are interconnected and it is not possible to separate one from the other in such wise that power can be delegated while duty is retained and vice versa	 the delegation of powers takes with it the duties.