IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1468 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/08/2008 in WP NO : 6616 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between:
1 Syed Abdul Sattar Latheefi S/o.Syed Hussain R/o.D.No.9/299, Sofia Street, Guntakal, Anantapur District.
2 Syed Abdul Sattar Latheefi, S/o. Syed Hussain, R/o. D.No. 9/299, Sofia Street, Guntakal, Ananthapur District.
AND ..... APPELLANT
1 Syed Khader Basha Quadri, S/o. Late Syed Latddf Basha Quadri, R/o. D.No. 2/182, Hanmesh Nagar Colony, Guntakal, Ananthapur District.
2 The Minorities Welfare (Wakf-1) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy ) At the request of the learned counsel on either side, this Writ Appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal at the interlocutory stage.
This writ appeal is filed against order dated 29.08.2008 passed in W.P. No. 6616 of 2008, whereby the learned Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appointment of appellant as Kazi of Guntakal Town.
Heard Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mirza Saifulla Baig, learned counsel for the respondent N.1 and perused the records.
The Respondent No.1 was appointed as Kazi by the State Government for Guntakal town and mandal. Subsequently, the State Government issued GO Ms. No.
4 dated 6.2.2008 appointing the appellant as Kazi for Guntakal Town. The respondent No.1 questioned the said G.O. mainly on the ground that the appellant does not possess the required qualification for being appointed at a Kazi. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant pleaded that the provisions of the Kazis Act, 1880 (for short “the Act”) do not prescribe any qualification for a Kazi. The learned Single Judge, however, allowed the writ petition on the short ground that the certificate possessed by the appellant which was issued by Jamia Nizamia shows that he passed Naib Qazath in third division, held in the month of September, 2006.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the absence of any provisions in the Act prescribing qualifications for being appointed as a Kazi, the learned Single Judge committed an error in setting aside the appointment of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, however, submitted that though the Act does not prescribe specific qualification for holding the office of Kazi, since respondent No.1 is already in the office, another Kazi ought not to have been appointed for the same area. He also submitted that in the absence of demarcation of the local area, there is every likelihood of clash of interest between the appellant and the respondent No.1.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Section 2 of the Act reads as under:
“..Sec. 2 - Power to appoint Kazis for any local area:
Wherever it appears to the a[a] Substituted for the words "Provincial Government" by A.L.O., 1950. [State Government] that any considerable number of the Muhammadans resident in any local area desire that one or more Kazis should be appointed for such local area, the a[a] Substituted for the words "Provincial Government" by A.L.O., 1950. [State Government] may, if it thinks fit, after consulting the principal Muhammadan residents of such local area, select one or more fit persons and appoint him or them to be Kazis for such local area. If any question arises whether any person has been rightly appointed Kazi under this section, the decision thereof by the a[a] Substituted for the words "Provincial Government" by A.L.O., 1950. [State Government] shall be conclusive. The a[a] Substituted for the words "Provincial Government" by A.L.O., 1950. [State Government] may, if it thinks fit, suspend or remove any Kazi appointed under this section who is guilty of any misconduct in the execution of his office, or who is for a continuous period of six months absent from the local area for which he is appointed, or leaves such local area for the purpose of residing elsewhere, or is declared an insolvent, or desires to be discharged from the office, or who refuses or becomes in the opinion of the a[a] Substituted for the words "Provincial Government" by A.L.O., 1950. [State Government] unfit, or personally incapable, to discharge the duties of the office.
From the above reproduced provision, it is clear that the State Government is empowered to appoint one or more Kazis for such local area as the State Government may think fit, after consulting the principal Muhammadan residents of such local area. In the instant case, the area for which the appellant is appointed is Guntakal town while the respondent No.1 was appointed for both Guntakal town and Mandal. We are, therefore, not in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the Government cannot appoint more than one Kazi in any local area.
As regards the finding of the learned Single Judge that as the appellant possessed certificate of Jamia Nizamia, he is deemed to be qualified as Naib Kazi only, we are unable to agree with this view of the learned Single Judge. While the Act does not prescribe any particular qualification for the office of Kazi, the State Government is empowered to appoint a Kazi after consultation with principal Muhammaden residents of that particular local area. This evidently shows that the person who is well versed with Muhammadan rituals and proficient in Quraan and recommended by the principal Muhammadan residents of the local area, is entitled to be appointed as a Kazi. As no formal qualifications are prescribed for the office of Kazi, the mere fact that the appellant holds certificate in respect of Naib Quazath, does not render him ineligible for being appointed as Kazi. For the above-mentioned reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that there is a likelihood of clash of interest among two Kazis, in the absence of specific demarcation of the functions, leading to overlapping of the area as far as performance of duties as Kazis is concerned, we find some force in this contention. As there is already one Kazi appointed for Guntakal town apart from Guntakal Mandal, and if the Government wants to appoint one more Kazi, it is appropriate that the local area has to be divided into separate areas to avoid clash between the two Kazis. In that view of the matter, the State Government is directed to demarcate the local area for the appellant and the respondent No.1, as regards Guntakal Town. The second respondent shall initiate and complete this exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
Justice T. Meena Kumari Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy February 6, 2009 MAS