Shaik Hafeez vs The Principal Secretary
2023 Latest Caselaw 2814 AP

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

             WRIT PETITION No.6030 of 2023

ORDER:

The petitioner is a resident of Kandukuru Town. The

Government had earlier appointed one Government Kazi, for

performance of marriages in Kandukuru Town. Subsequently,

respondent No.6 had been appointed as a Government Kazi,

by way of G.O.Rt.No.55 dated 15.02.2023 for a Masjid in

Kandukuru Town on northern side of O.V Road and Masjid in

certain villages in Kandukuru Mandal, for a period of three

years, for performing marriages in Principal Mohammedans.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said

appointment has approached this Court for a direction that

the said G.O is set aside on the ground that the procedure

contemplated under Section 2 of the Kazi Act was not

followed.

3. Sri Basheer Ahmed, learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that Section 2 of the Kazi Act

requires the District Collector to consult and take into

account the opinions of the significance members of the

Principal Mohammedans residents of the area as to before

selecting one or more fit person tobe appointed as Kazis for

such local area. He submits that in the present case, the

District Collector, Prakasam had consulted the Principal

Mohammedans of Kandukuru town and had submitted a

report to the Government dated 18.08.2022 stating that

Principal Mohammedans appear tobe adverse to the

appointment of another Government Kazi. However, the

Government without going into this recommendation of the

District Collector has chosen to issue impugned G.O.,

appointing the 6th respondent as Kazi for the area which is

presently being administered by the existing Kazi. He relies

upon a Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court

of Telangana dated 10.01.2020 in W.P.No.22315 of 2019.

4. Sri Mohammad Saleem, learned counsel

appearing for the 6th respondent disputes the said

contentions. He contends that the petitioner has no locus

stande to file the present writ petition on the ground that he

is neither the Kazi nor is affected in any manner by

appointment of 6th respondent as a Kazi. He would further

submit that the petitioner is the brother-in-law of the present

Kazi and has been set up by the present Kazi to file this case.

He would further submit that the impugned G.O was issued

by the Government on the basis of a report dated 11.01.2023

issued by the Collector, Nellore District. He would submit

that the contention of the petitioner that the report of the

District Collector, Prakasam should be taken into account is

not tenable as Kandukuru falls within Nellore District as a

result bifurcation of Districts and as such the impugned G.O

issued by the Government is in order as the report of the

District Collector, Nellore dated 11.01.2023 recommended the

appointment of the 6th respondent as a Kazi have certain

comparisons for Kandukuru town and the area in Kandukuru

Mandal. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also

draw the attention of this Court to the observation of District

Collector, for appointment of another Kazi, is required as the

present Kazi is charging exorbitant fees for conduct of

marriages in the area.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that the report

of the District Collector, Prakasam dated 18.08.2022 was

disregarded by the Government and as such the hesitation

with the Principal Mohammedans of the area, required under

Section 2 of the Kazi Act was not complied. This contention

cannot be accepted as the Government relied upon the report

of the District Collector, Nellore dated 11.01.2023 for issuing

the impugned G.O appointing the 6th respondent as a Kazi.

6. The Judgment cited by the learned counsel for

the petitioner would also not be applicable in the present

case as there has been no violation of the requirement under

Section 2 of the Kazi Act.

7. This Court is not going into the question of

whether the existing Kazi is charging an exorbitant fee or not

as the said statement has been recorded without any

opportunity being given to the present Kazi to rebut the

same.

8. However, in the absence of any violation of

Section 2 of the Kazi Act, this Court does deem it appropriate

to interfere in this matter.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

03.05.2023 RJS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.6030 of 2023

03-05-2023

RJS