Telangana High Court
Mohammed Zaheeruddin vs The State Of Telangana on 25 November, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.24449 of 2025
ORDER:
The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that
he was appointed under G.O.Ms.No.2, Minority Welfare, dated
07.02.2008, as Additional Kazi of Qazzat, Qile Mohammed Nagar,
Hyderabad, and he was removed him from service vide the impugned
order, G.O.Rt.No.65, dated 07.08.2025, without conducting any enquiry,
without specifying any misconduct attributable to him, and without
affording him an opportunity to defend himself, and therefore the same is
violative of the procedures under Section 2 of the Kazi's Act, 1880.
1.1 It is stated that the petitioner's jurisdiction as Additional Kazi
covers the Qazzat, Qile Mohammed Nagar area, comprising parts of
Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, and
portions of Medak District, and his appointment is subsisting, and he has
discharged his duties for 15 years strictly in accordance with the Kazi's
Act, 1880, without any occasion for complaint.
1.2 It is stated that the dispute began when the 1st respondent
issued the first show cause notice dated 07.02.2025, directing him to
explain within 15 days why he should not be suspended. This notice was
premised on allegations that his Naib Kazis had been involved in
performing child marriages and "various other illegal activities," and that
they had been arrested by several police stations as reflected in a report of
the ACP, Faluknama, South Zone dated 27.04.2021. The petitioner reports
that the notice further invoked the common judgment of the High Court
dated 30.09.2024 in W.P.No.38879 of 2022 and W.P.No.34194 of 2017, as
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
well as the instructions issued under G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 29.04.2022. In
correspondence dated 24.02.2025, the petitioner submitted his formal
explanation to the 1st respondent, denying the allegations entirely,
enclosing details of criminal court acquittals relating to the accused Naib
Kazis, and demanding that the proceeding be dropped. Further, the
1strespondent's show cause notice dated 03.08.2023 accused him of issuing
a divorce certificate contrary to existing law, and that he responded by
letter dated 22.08.2023 addressed to the 1strespondent, in which he asserted
that the certificate he issued--described as a "single talak (talak Rajace)"
certificate--was fully permissible under Shariat principles, and therefore
legal. In this communication he again requested that all further action may
be dropped, and thatneither the first nor second show cause notice
identified any act of personal misconduct connected to his duties as
Kazi.Despite this, the 1st respondent, allegedly acting under the influence
of "enmically disposed persons," proceeded to issue G.O.Rt.No.65, dated
07.08.2025, removing him from office. The petitioner asserts that he was
given no opportunity to rebut any allegation, and that the State's action
constitutes an impermissible ex post facto determination of misconduct--
particularly because the Act does not define the term "misconduct."
Further, the respondent relied on a judgment in W.P.No.10893 of 2024,
decided on 24.04.2024, which merely directed compliance with
proceedings dated 31.08.2023 and 22.09.2023, that has no bearing on the
impugned order.
1.3 The petitioner contends that the only substantive claims ever
raised concerned (i) alleged child-marriage performances by his Naib
Kazis and (ii) his issuance of a divorce certificate--neither of which
amount to misconduct under the Act. The petitioner further states that the
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
respondent countered the petitioner's case by alleging that the petitioner
bore responsibility for the illegal acts of the Naib Kazis and that his
issuance of the divorce certificate constituted a violation of statutory law.
The petitioner replies that the Naib Kazis' alleged conduct cannot legally
be imputed to him, that Shariat law permits the issuance of the single-talak
certificate he provided, and that even if the respondent had concerns, they
could not bypass the statutory requirement of an enquiry and a finding of
misconduct, and therefore the impugned G.O.Rt.No.65, dated 07.08.2025,
is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
2. A counter affidavit is filed by the 1strespondent essentially
contending that the Government, acting under Section 2 of the Kazi's Act,
appointed the petitioner on 07.02.2008 and two others to perform
marriages within Qile Mohammed Nagar subject to strict terms and
conditions. The respondent contends that this appointment occurred only
after consultation with the Government Pleader for Social Welfare and
Minorities Welfare, and that the petitioner's authority was always
conditional upon adherence to the Act. Over the years, however, the
Government received repeated reports of irregular and illegal practices in
the petitioner's Qazaath. As early as 25.09.2017, the petitioner had been
suspended under G.O.Ms.No.29 for criminal activities undertaken by his
appointed Naib Khazis--specifically Mohd. Naseeruddin, Mirza
Qudrathullah Baig, and Habeeb Ali--who were accused in FIR No.163 of
2016 (Chandrayangutta Police Station), FIR No.1713 of 2017
(Rajendranagar Police Station), FIR No.764 of 2017 (Mailardevpally
Police Station), and FIR No.163 of 2017 (Falaknuma Police Station) of
performing marriages of minor girls, cheating poor families, and enabling
exploitation by foreign nationals. Although the petitioner obtained interim
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
relief in W.P.M.P.No.42517 of 2017 in W.P.No.34194 of 2017, leading to
revocation of the suspension, it is contended that revocation was "subject
to final orders" and did not exonerate the petitioner of the underlying
allegations.
2.1 The respondent further contends that vide Common Order
dated 30.09.2024 in W.P.No.38879 of 2022 and W.P.No.34194 of 2017,
this Court directed the Government to take action under Section 2 of the
Act after considering the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police
dated 14.07.2021, the letter of the Deputy Commissioner of Police dated
13.08.2021, and the Government's Memo dated 05.03.2022. These
documents show serious criminal activities in the petitioner's Qazaath; and
the ACP's report stated that the petitioner's Naib Kazi had been arrested
on 20.11.2017 and linked to ongoing criminal investigations involving
child marriages, and requested that the petitioner be directed to personally
perform marriages rather than continue delegating duties to Naib Khazis
involved in illegalities. It is contended that, at that time, because the Naib
Khazi did not confess regarding the petitioner's role, police did not arrest
the petitioner, and the case remained at the charge-sheet stage, but the
evidence warranted governmental enquiry based on the directions of this
Court. In compliance of the direction of this Court, the Government issued
a show cause notice vide Memo No.3205/Estt.1/2017, dated 07.02.2025,
calling upon the petitioner to explain why he should not be suspended
forthe criminal activities carried out by his Naib Khazis, including
performing child marriages and facilitating exploitation of minor girls by
old-aged Arab sheikhs. The notice expressly referenced the Common
Order of this Court passed on 30.09.2024 and stated that failure to provide
satisfactory explanation would lead to further action under the Kazi's Act
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
and G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 29.04.2022, and that the petitioner's reply was
"vague and evasive," failing to address the substance of the allegations.
2.2 It is further contended that the Government received a legal
notice dated 21.07.2023 from "A to Z Associates, Advocates,
Basheerbagh", stating that a "Talaq Raj'ah" had been pronounced by the
husband on 08.07.2023 and would attain legality only after the 90-day
iddat period concluding on 07.10.2023. Despite this, the petitioner issued a
Divorce Certificate prematurely on 12.07.2023 merely five days after the
pronouncement and well within the iddat period, and the same was
contrary to Shariah law and amounted to deliberate misconduct.
Consequently, a show cause notice dated 03-08-2023 was issued, but
again, the petitioner's reply was vague and unsatisfactory.
2.3 It is further contended that the repeated warnings were issued
to the petitioner, and reports by the District Collector, Hyderabad,
including those dated 31.08.2023, 22.09.2023, and 03.06.2024, all noting
ongoing complaints that the petitioner and his Naib Khazis were
unlawfully interfering in other Khazi jurisdictions and performing
marriages outside their authorized zones. The District Collector asked the
Government to initiate stringent action on the petitioner's continued
defiance of governmental instructions despite earlier warnings. It is
contended that the "Doctrine of Vicarious Liability," under the maxim
respondeat superior("let the principal be liable"), the petitioner--as the
master--must answer for the acts of his servants, especially since the
Government does not appoint Naib Khazis; the petitioner himself appoints
and therefore cannot absolve himself of the acts committed by such Naib
Khazis. The respondent asserts that the petitioner not only appointed these
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
Naib Khazis but also countersigned the marriage booklets and Qazaath
papers, attesting to the correctness of entries regarding marriages of minor
girls performed with his consent. It is contended that the petitioner is a
"litigant person" who has filed number of writ petitions to maintain
monopoly over the Qazaath, engaged in unlawful interference in other
jurisdictions, issued illegal divorce certificates, allowed his appointees to
conduct marriages of minor girls for "huge amounts," and repeatedly
attempted to evade responsibility by blaming Naib Khazis for actions he
supervised and approved. It is finally contended that the cumulative
recordfrom FIR 163 of 2016 to the ACP's Report dated 14.07.2021, the
legal notice dated 21.07.2023, the Collector's reports dated 31.08.2023,
22.09.2023, and 03.06.2024, and the petitioner's inadequate replies to
notices dated 07.02.2025 and 03.08.2023demonstrated a sustained pattern
of misconduct and illegality; and on this basis, the Government removed
the petitioner through the impugned Order vide G.O.Rt.No.65, dated
07.08.2025, exercising its authority under Section 2 of the Kazi's Act,
1880, and there is no illegality in the impugned Order.
3. An implead petition, vide I.A.No.2 of 2025, is filed by the
applicants, Qazi Ahmed Shujauddin Quadri and another, seeking
impleadmentas respondents No.4 and 5 in the writ petition challenging
G.O.Rt.No.65 dated 07.08.2025, by which the writ petitioner was removed
from the post of Additional Kazi of Qila Mohammednagar. It is contended
that they are necessary parties as they are government-appointed Qazis
under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880, functioning within the Zones
created under G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 20.03.2002. The first petitioner was
appointed as Qazi of Jahanuma Zone by G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 09.12.2021,
and the second petitioner as Qazi of Maisaram (P) by G.O.Ms.No.15 dated
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
02.03.2022, and both have been discharging their duties without
complaint. It is contended that G.O.Ms.No.13 superseded the earlier seven
Qazaaths, including Qila Mohammednagar, and created 32 zones; the
validity of this GO was upheld when W.P.No.6708 of 2002, W.P.No.6744
of 2002, W.P.No.6753 of 2002, and W.P.No.6735 of 2002 were dismissed
by this Court; and with the new appointments, the old Qazaaths ceased to
exist, and therefore the writ petitioner cannot claim relief based on the
former jurisdiction of Qila Mohammednagar. The implead applicants
further recount the complaints, FIR and inquiries against the writ petitioner
and his Naib Khazis for performing child marriages, issuing fake marriage
booklets, conducting marriages outside their jurisdiction, and issuing
illegal divorce certificates, and essentially contend that despite multiple
warnings--including Memo dated 09.07.2024 issued pursuant to the orders
in W.P.No.10893 of 2024, and despite interim orders in W.P.No.2375 of
2023 restraining a Naib Qazi, the writ petitioner continued interfering in
their jurisdictions and performing marriages there, and therefore their
impleadment is essential for adjudication of the writ petition.
4. Another implead petition vide I.A.No.3 of 2025 was filed by Qazi
Azizullah Osmaniseekimpleadment of proposed respondents 4 to 9 in the
writ petition, stating that they are necessary parties as they are
government-appointed Qazis functioning under the zonal demarcation
issued through G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 20.03.2002. It is contended that the
first proposed respondents No.4 to 9, respectively, were appointed as Qazi
of Musheerabad Zone by G.O.Ms.No.44 dated 05.09.2023; Qazi of
Mettuguda Zone by G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 18.05.2023; Qazi of Ameerpet
Zone by G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 06.03.2023; Qazi of Khairtabad Zone by
G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 06.03.2023; Qazi of Asifnagar Zone by
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 13.04.2023; Qazi of Golconda Zone by
G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 18.05.2023. All appointments were made under
Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880, which authorizes both appointment and
removal of Qazis. It is contended that until 2002, Hyderabad and
Secunderabad had only seven Qazaaths, and hereditary Qazis could not
meet the growing needs of the community. G.O.Ms.No.13 reorganized the
seven Qazaaths into thirty-two zones. Multiple writ petitions
(W.P.Nos.6708, 6744, 6753, 6735 of 2002) challenged this GO, but all
were dismissed--on 15.10.2008 and 17.10.2016--upholding the GO's
validity. Consequently, earlier jurisdictions, including the historic Qazaath
Qila Mohammednagar, stood superseded. The petitioners contend that six
of the newly created zones were carved out of the former Qila
Mohammednagar area, and they now hold valid appointments there. It is
contended that the writ petitioner and another individual, appointed under
the pre-2002 structure, lost all legal jurisdiction after G.O.Ms.No.13, yet
continued to perform marriages in the petitioners' zones, contrary to the
Government Orders and the High Court's directions. The petitioners have
already filed W.P.No.8622 of 2025 challenging G.O.Ms.No.2, which
concerns the old appointments. It is further contended that the writ
petitioner and his Naib Qazis have been repeatedly implicated in
performing child marriages, interfering with other Qazis' areas, and
issuing illegal divorce certificates, and that more than 20 FIRs registered
against the writ petitioner or his Naib Qazis. They highlight serious
allegations, including issuance of a divorce certificate without observing
the mandatory iddat period of three menstrual cycles/three months,
allegedly divorcing a couple "within one week," which they say violates
both law and Sharia principles.
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
5. The writ petitioner filed counter affidavits against the implead
petitions filed in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025. It is essentially contended in the
counter affidavits that the implead applicants in both applications are Kazis
of other local areas and have no locus standi to intervene in a writ petition
that concerns only the legality of the Government's decision removing him
from office. He contends that only the State Government--specifically the
Minority Welfare Department--can defend the impugned order, and no
private individuals, particularly rival Kazis, have any legal right to support
or oppose the Government's action in such proceedings. It is contended
that the implead applicants are motivated by professional rivalry and
jealousy, and have filed the petitions out of spite and prejudice. According
to him, they neither possess any legal interest in the subject matter nor
qualify as necessary or proper parties for adjudicating the dispute, which
solely concerns whether the State acted lawfully in removing him, and the
implead petitions may be dismissed and the main writ petition may be
decided on merits after hearing only the 1st respondent-State.
6. Heard Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner; and Mr. V.M.M. Chary, learned
counsel for the impleadedrespondents in I.A.No.2 of 2025, and Mr. P.
Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the impleaded respondents in
I.A.No.3 of 2025. Perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned
Order, G.O.Rt.No.65 dated 07.08.2025, removing the petitioner from the
Office of Additional Kazi, Qile Mohammed Nagar, is wholly arbitrary,
illegal, and bereft of any disclosed misconduct. It is contended that the
petitioner has served as Government Kazi for several decades without
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
blemish and that the impugned action violates the fundamental principles
of natural justice, inasmuch as no specific allegation, enquiry report, or
material indicating misconduct was ever furnished to him prior to the
issuance of the impugned order. It is submitted that the petitioner's
removal is the product of ulterior motives and professional jealousy
harboured by certain Kazis of other local areas who, despite having no
connection with the petitioner's jurisdiction, have been repeatedly
interfering with the functioning of the petitioner and have now sought to
support the impugned order through implead petitions.
7.1 Learned counsel contends that the implead applicants lack
locus standi, have no legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the writ
petition, and are motivated solely by rivalry, which is evident from their
unwarranted allegations and attempts to expand their jurisdiction. It is
contended that the writ petition concerns only the legality of Government
action and can be effectively defended only by the State, rendering the
implead petitions wholly misconceived.
7.2 It is further contended that the petitioner was neither issued a
proper show-cause notice nor afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain
before the drastic step of removal was taken, thereby the impugned order is
vitiated for want of procedural fairness. The petitioner's counsel
emphasizes that vague references to complaints or FIRs--many of which
relate to incidents involving Naib Qazis and not the petitioner personally--
cannot form the basis for removal without a formal enquiry. The petitioner
has consistently denied any involvement in the alleged irregularities and
asserts that no material was put to him establishing any illegality by the
petitioner. It is therefore contended that the Government acted
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
mechanically, without independent application of mind, and in complete
disregard of the petitioner's long-standing service. Learned counsel thus
prays that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the implead
petitions are also liable to be dismissed, and the petitioner restored to the
office of Additional Kazi, Qile Mohammed Nagar.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the writ petition is
wholly devoid of merit, as the impugned G.O.Rt.No.65 dated 07.08.2025
has been issued strictly in accordance with the authority vested in the
Government under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880, which expressly
empowers the State to suspend or remove a Kazi who is found guilty of
misconduct or who acts contrary to the statutory framework governing the
office. It is submitted that the petitioner's removal was neither arbitrary
nor uninformed, but was necessitated by a long trail of complaints, police
reports, and multiple FIRs concerning the functioning of the petitioner and
his Naib Qazis, particularly relating to the performance of child marriages,
interference in the jurisdictions of other appointed Kazis, and issuance of
divorce certificates in clear violation of Sharia principles and without
adherence to essential requirements such as the Iddat period. Learned
counsel points out that the implead petitioners in I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2025
were appointed as Kazis for newly demarcated zones under G.O.Ms.No.13
dated 20.03.2002 and subsequent Government Orders, and that the
petitioner, despite having no surviving jurisdiction under the old Qila
Mohammed Nagar Qazaath, continued to trespass into their zones and
conduct marriages illegally. This persistent interference, coupled with the
petitioner's conduct, compelled both the implead petitioners to approach
the Court and the Government to act in the interest of the community.
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
8.1 It is further contended that the petitioner's claim of procedural
violation is untenable because show-cause notices were in fact issued on
03.08.2023 and 07.02.2025, putting him on notice regarding allegations
relating to illegal divorces and child marriages performed by his Naib
Qazis, and the petitioner submitted explanations which were duly
considered by the Government. The respondents emphasize that the
petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the allegations when more than 20
FIRs have been registered involving either him or his Naib Qazis, and that
his attempt to distance himself from their acts is misleading, as he is
statutorily responsible for their activities within the Qazaath, and hence the
impugned order is both justified and legally sustainable, and the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 contends that the
impleaded respondents are necessary and proper parties to the writ
proceedings as they are government-appointed Qazis under Section 2 of
the Kazis Act, 1880, duly functioning within the territorial Zones
constituted under G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 20.03.2002. It is submitted that
respondent No.4 was appointed as Qazi of Jahanuma Zone by
G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 09.12.2021 and respondent No.5 as Qazi of
Maisaram (P) by G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 02.03.2022, and both have been
discharging their duties without complaint. Counsel emphasizes that
G.O.Ms.No.13 superseded the earlier seven Qazaaths, including Qila
Mohammednagar, and created 32 Zones, thereby extinguishing the old
Qazaath structure on which the writ petitioner seeks to base his claim. The
validity of G.O.Ms.No.13, it is pointed out, has already been upheld by this
Court in W.P.No.6708 of 2002, W.P.No.6744 of 2002, W.P.No.6753 of
2002 and W.P.No.6735 of 2002. It is further submitted that several
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
complaints, an FIR and official inquiries have been initiated against the
writ petitioner and his Naib Khazis for performing child marriages, issuing
fake marriage booklets, conducting marriages outside their jurisdiction and
issuing illegal divorce certificates. Despite repeated warnings, including
Memo dated 09.07.2024 issued pursuant to orders in W.P.No.10893 of
2024, and despite interim orders in W.P.No.2375 of 2023 restraining a
Naib Qazi, the writ petitioner continued to interfere within the jurisdictions
of respondents No.4 and 5 and to conduct marriages therein. In these
circumstances, counsel asserts that the presence of respondents No.4 and 5
is essential for effective adjudication of the challenge to G.O.Rt.No.65
dated 07.08.2025 and for resolving the jurisdictional disputes arising from
the petitioner's conduct.
10. Learned counsel for the impleaded respondents in I.A.No.3 of 2025
submits that the proposed respondents 4 to 9 are necessary and proper
parties to the writ proceedings, as they are all government-appointed Qazis
functioning strictly within the zonal demarcation brought into force by
G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 20.03.2002. Counsel points out that these proposed
respondents were respectively appointed as Qazi of Musheerabad Zone
(G.O.Ms.No.44 dated 05.09.2023), Qazi of Mettuguda Zone
(G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 18.05.2023), Qazi of Ameerpet Zone
(G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 06.03.2023), Qazi of Khairtabad Zone
(G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 06.03.2023), Qazi of Asifnagar Zone
(G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 13.04.2023) and Qazi of Golconda Zone
(G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 18.05.2023), all under Section 2 of the Kazis Act,
1880, which empowers the Government to appoint and remove Qazis. It is
contended that the pre-2002 system of seven hereditary Qazaaths in
Hyderabad and Secunderabad had become obsolete and insufficient to
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
serve the needs of the expanding community, leading to the comprehensive
reorganization of Qazi jurisdictions under G.O.Ms.No.13. Counsel stresses
that the validity of this G.O. was fully upheld when W.P.Nos.6708, 6744,
6753 and 6735 of 2002 were dismissed on 15.10.2008 and 17.10.2016,
thereby conclusively affirming that all earlier Qazaaths--including the
historic Qazaath Qila Mohammednagar--stood superseded. It is argued
that six of the newly created zones were carved out from areas previously
falling under Qila Mohammednagar, and the proposed respondents now
hold valid and exclusive appointments for those zones. Notwithstanding
this, the writ petitioner and another individual, who trace their authority to
the pre-2002 structure, continued to conduct marriages within the
petitioners' jurisdictions in defiance of the new zonal framework, the
Government Orders, and express directions of this Court. Counsel further
submits that the petitioners have already questioned G.O.Ms.No.2 relating
to the old appointments by filing W.P.No.8622 of 2025. It is also asserted
that the writ petitioner and his Naib Qazis have been repeatedly implicated
in serious misconduct, including performing child marriages, encroaching
into other Qazis' territorial jurisdictions, and issuing illegal divorce
certificates, with more than twenty FIRs having been registered against
them. Particularly grave allegations include the issuance of a divorce
certificate without observing the mandatory iddat period of three menstrual
cycles or three months, allegedly dissolving a marriage "within one week,"
which counsel submits is contrary both to law and to established principles
of Sharia. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the presence of the
proposed respondents is indispensable for a complete, effective and just
adjudication of the issues raised in the writ petition.
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
11. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the
record, it may be noted at the outset that the petitioner's challenge to
G.O.Rt.No.65 dated 07.08.2025 rests primarily on the assertion that no
misconduct was ever attributed to him, that the State acted without
enquiry, and that the impugned order is unreasoned and arbitrary. In this
connection, it is relevant to refer to paragraph 6 of the impugned Order
wherein it is specifically stated as follows:
th
"6. Further in another case, in the reference 9 read above, complaint
received against Sri Mohd. Zaheeruddin, Addl. Khazi, Qile Mohammed
Nagar, Hyderabad, regarding issue of illegal Divorce Certificate."
12. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to paragraphs No.15, 16, and
21 in the counter affidavit of 1st respondent, wherein it is stated as follows:
"15. It is pertinent to mention herein that as a Khazi, his duty is to
verify whether the parties to the marriage have attained the stipulated
age and whether there exists the offer and acceptance, free from any
external factors. Khazi ought to have been careful in ascertaining the
ages of the parties, to a marriage during the course of enquiry, several
marriages between Arab Sheiks and innocent girls in the city of
Hyderabad, have come to light. It is alleged that Khazis and their Naibs
have provided facilities to the Arab Sheiks for their stay and marriage by
collecting huge amounts. In fact Khazi occupies an important place in
Muslim Law and had misused their position for monetary gains. A khazi
is responsible for the acts and omissions on the part of Naib Khazi
appointed by him. He was conferred with adjudicatory and administrative
powers and endowed with religious duties and functions. A khazi validly
appointed by the Government, in exercise of powers under section 2 or a
Naib khazi appointed by a khazi under section 3 of the Act, obviously
alone is entitled to maintain records of his/their performance or marriage
in regular course of duties and functions and to keep the same as
authenticated evidence for future purpose, or to give a copy thereof after
marriage to the parties as an evidence of marriage. It is mandatory duty
of the Khazi to collect documentary proof i.e., Identicatio card/ certificate
of the parties to marriage to find out their actual ages in view of the fact
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
that verbal statement bride or bridegroom or their parents cannot be
relied on at all."
16. It is respectfully submitted that the format of marriage
certificate clearly shows the space earmarked for signature of the Khazi.
Therefore, it is clearly evident in each and every marriage performed by
the Naib Khazi, the signature of Khazi is mandatory requirement as such
the Khazi i.e., the petitioner herein cannot claim ignorance of the
marriage performed by the Naib Khazi.
21. In reply to Para 7 of the affidavit it is submitted that a
complaint is received against the petitioner vide legal notice dated 21-07-
2023 from A to Z Associates, Advocates, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, that
in the instant case, "Talaq Raj'ah" was pronounced by the husband for
the first time on 08-07-2023 and it will attain legality only after completion
of Iddat period of 90 days i.e., on 7-10-2023. But the petitioner issued
Divorce Certificate on 12-07-2023, just after five days from the date of
pronouncement of "Talaq Raj'ah" within a period of iddat which is
irregular and illegal against the Shariah Law. Thus a show cause notice
dated 03-08-2023 was issued to the petitioner why disciplinary action
should not be initiated against him for misconduct for issuing such
irregular and illegal Divorce Certificate contrary to Shariah Law. He
submitted vague and evasive reply."
13. Furthermore, it cannot be said that there is no definition of
misconduct, and that therefore, any determination of misconduct is
impermissible in law. It is to be noted that the self-distancing of the
petitioner from the acts of omissions and commissions by the Naib Khazis,
performing impermissible acts of minor-girl marriages, and going beyond
the jurisdictional authority, are on the face value of the very acts constitute
a conduct that is violative of the statutory responsibilities, which is not
permissible as per law, and therefore they would indisputably amount to
misconduct. Further, it is unrebutted contention of the respondent
authorities that the Government is not the appointing authority of the Naib
Khazis and it is the petitioner who appoints them, and on numerous
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
occasions the petitioner was warned not to delegate the duties to Naib
Khazis and that the petitioner has not heeded to the warnings about the
illegalities being committed and complaints being filed against the Naib
Khazis, and therefore the petitioner cannot feign ignorance or absolve
himself of the acts and activities being performed by such Naib Khazis.
Further, except a broad denial and general assertions of innocence, the
petitioner has not furnished substantive explanation to counter the specific
allegations repeatedly emerging from official enquiries, including multiple
FIRs registered over the years against his office or his Naib Qazis for
performing child marriages, issuing illegal divorce certificates, and
interfering with the jurisdiction of other appointed Kazis. Furthermore,
though the petitioner refers to acquittals in certain cases, there was no
plausible explanation for repeated registration of cases and the findings of
the Assistant Commissioner of Police in the report dated 14.07.2021.
Further, there are specific findings recorded in the Report of the ACP,
referring to ten FIRs/CCs, the District Collector's enquiry reports dated
31.08.2023, 22.09.2023 and 03.06.2025, the Government Memoranda
warning him not to interfere in other jurisdictions, and judicial directions
in earlier writ proceedings directing the Government to consider these
reports and take action under Section 2 of the Act.
13.1 Further, the governing statute is the Kazis Act, 1880, which
vests the State Government with authority to appoint, suspend, or remove a
Kazi on grounds including misconduct or unfitness. The petitioner's
contentions about absence of a statutory definition of "misconduct" does
not inter alia justify the illegalities committed either by him, or by the Naib
Khazis under him, and the nature of illegalities and irregularities are proof-
positive to connote as violative of the statutory responsibilities.
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
Undoubtedly, performing of child marriages, issuing illegal divorce
certificates, and exceeding jurisdictional authority, cannot be termed
"bonafide" or legal, and such acts are unbecoming of the authority being
exercised by the petitioner, either by him or through him by his appointees.
Further, the Kazis Act expressly confers wide administrative discretion
upon the State, and the Courts have consistently held that where the statute
confers such discretion, the scope of judicial review is limited to
examining whether the decision is arbitrary or unsupported by material.
The materials relied upon by the 1st respondent-Government--particularly
the multiple law-enforcement reports, judicial directions in earlier writ
petitions, and the repeated complaints regarding the misuse of marriage
booklets and the performance of marriages outside jurisdiction--amply
justify the impugned action. The various complaints made against the
petitioner, and the very argument of the petitioner, in paragraph 9 of the
writ affidavit, stating that "Firstly, that my Naib Kazis were performing
marriages of minor girls, cannot be attributed to me" is a statement of
irresponsibility not expected of a person who was specifically appointed to
oversee and administer various acts strictly in accordance with the Kazis
Act. Furthermore, it is the specific unrebutted contention of the
respondents, borne out by the record as per the counter affidavit, that for
each and every marriage performed by the Naib Khazi, the signature of
Khazi (i.e., the petitioner) is mandatory, and therefore the petitioner cannot
plead ignorance of the marriage performed by the Naib Khazi. And even
with regard to the Divorce Certificate, the same has been issued on
12.07.2023 which is within five days of pronouncement of Talaq Raj'ah by
the husband on 08.07.2023, without following the mandatory waiting
period of three months as per Shariat Law.
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
13.2 With regard to the contention of procedural fairness, it is
explicit from the record that the petitioner was issued show-cause notices
dated 07.02.2025 and 03.08.2023, placing him on notice of the allegations
and calling for his explanation. The petitioner had full opportunity to
present his defence, and nothing prevented him from placing all relevant
documents before the authority, and therefore it cannot be said that there
was violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the counter
affidavit reveals various enquiry reports, registration of cases on
illegalities, and the findings in the ACP reports, and also the warnings
issued by the District Collector and other authorities with regard to
violations in following the statutory responsibilities by the petitioner.
13.3 Further, there is no dispute that the authority issuing the
impugned Order, G.O.Rt.No.65 is the competent Government under
Section 2 of the Kazis Act, fully empowered to take disciplinary action.
The petitioner's contention that he was not appointed under newer Zonal
divisions, or that his position as "Additional Kazi" was immune from
removal, has no foundation in the Act. Once the statute vests plenary
power of removal in the Government, and the Government's conclusions
are based on cogent material, the same cannot be countered by a mere
denial, without there being any substantive evidence for such denial.
Furthermore, it is a matter borne out by the record, and also as a requisite
under the Statute, that any marriage performed by the Naib Khazis
invariably bears the signature of the Khazi (the petitioner) and the
petitioner cannot plainly deny merely for the sake of denial. In that view of
the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Order
do not disclose any grounds warranting intervention by this Court under
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226; and the writ petition is
therefore liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. In view of the
dismissal of the writ petition, the implead applications are closed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
25thNovember, 2025
ksm
wp_24449_2025
NBK, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.24449 of 2025
25thNovember, 2025
ksm
