Disposed

Shaik Chand Basha v. The Govt. of A.P rep. by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Jul 2024WP/12044/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Government Kazi challenged the appointment of another Kazi for three mandals within his division. The Court held that Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 permits appointment of more than one Kazi for a local area and vests no exclusive territorial right in an existing Kazi. The writ petition was closed without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shaik Chand Basha Vs The Govt. of A.P rep… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 12044 OF 2nil

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shaik Chand Basha, S/o Shaik Bashu aged about 42 years, R/o.

¶8

D.No.16-01-95, Sultan Mohideen Nagar, Kandukur, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The Govt, of A.P rep. by its Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare (WakfI) Dept. Secretariat, A.P. Hyderabad.

¶11

The A.P. State Wakf Board rep by its Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hajj House Building, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶12

Mulla Chand Basha, S/o Late Nayab Rasool Podili Mandal Prakasam District.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order made in

¶15

◄

¶16

G.O.Ms.No.94, Minority Welfare (Wakf-I) Dept. Dt. 30.03.2011 passed by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of the provision of Sec.2 of the Qazis Act. Consequently direct the respondnets 1 and 2 herein not to appoint any Government Qazi including the 3rd respondent for the local area i ■ e. for 3 mandals namely, Podili, Marripoodi and Konakanamitia which comes under the jurisdiction of the petitioner.

¶17

LA. NO: 3 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 14710 OF 9nn|

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order made j in G,O.Ms.No. 94 Minority Welfare (wakf-l) Department Dt. 30-03-2011 passed by the 1st respondent in the interest of justice.

¶19

LA. NO: 2 OF 2011(WVMP. NO: 3876 OF

¶20

The Govt, of A.P rep. by its Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare (Wakf-I) Dept. Secretariat, A.P. Hyderabad

¶21

...Petitioner

¶22

AND

¶23

Shaik Chand Basha, S/o Shaik Bashu, aged about 42 years, R/o. D.No.16-01-95, Sultan Mohideen Nagar, Kandukur, Prakasam District.

¶24

The A.P. State Wakf Board rep by its Chief Executive Officer, A.P.

¶25

State Wakf Board, Hajj House Building, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶26

Mulla Chand Basha, S/o Late Nayab Rasool Podili Mandal Prakasam District.

¶27

...Respondents

¶28

(Respondents 2"^^ and 3'^ not necessary parties in this petition)

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 27.04.2011 in W.P.M.P. No.14710 of 2011 in W.P. No.12044 of 2011.

¶30

LA. NO: 1 OF 201irWVMP. NO: 2478 OF ?nn|

¶31

Mulla Chand Basha, S/o Late Nayab Rasool Podili Mandal Prakasam District ...Petitioner AND

¶32

The Govt, of A.P rep. by its Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare (WakfI) Dept. Secretariat, A.P. Hyderabad.

¶33

The A.P. State Wakf Board, rep by its Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hajj House Building, Nampally.

¶34

Shaik Chand Basha, S/o Shaik Bashu aged about 42 years, R/o. D.No.16-01-95, Sultan Mohideen Nagar, Kandukur, Prakasam District ...Respondents

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances Stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim suspension order dated 27.04.2011 in W.P.M.P.No.14710 of 2011 in W.P.No.12044 of 2011.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. S A RAZAK

¶37

Counsel for the Respondents: SITA RAM CHAPARLA

¶38

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶39

The Court made the following ORDER:

APHC010490042011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶44

[3329]

¶45

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶46

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶47

PRESENT

¶48

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶49

WRIT PETITION NO: 12044/2011

¶50

Between:

¶51

Shaik Chand Basha ...PETITIONER

¶52

AND

¶53

The Govt Of A P Rep By Its Principal Secretary and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶55

1.S A RAZAK

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶57

1.SITA RAM CHAPARLA

¶58

2.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶59

The Court made the following Order:

¶60

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was appointed as Government Kazi under G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 15.03.2008, for Kandukur Division, excluding Kandukuru Town and Mandal. By G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 30.03.2011, respondent No.3 was appointed as another

¶62

¶63

Kazi for three Mandals, namely, Podili, Marripudi and^{Konkanametiamandals} of Prakasam District for performing Muslim marriages. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.14710 of²⁰¹¹ in W.P.No.12044 of 2011, seeking suspension of the impugned G.O. This Court by order dated 27.04.2011, suspended the said G.O. Then, respondent^Nos.1 and 3 have filed separate vacate stay applications for vacating interim order/ suspension.

¶64

Sri S.A.Razack, learned counsel for the petitioner, would further submitted that, the three mandals, for which respondent No.3 was appointed as Kazi, formed part of the 24 mandals of Kandukur^Division for which his client was already appointed as Kazi and that no such notice was issued before, the impugned G.O. Therefore, the issuance of G.O. cannot be sustained in law and on facts. He also submitted that as per the State Government Guidelines, for a population up to 50,000, a Kazi has to be appointed and as the population of entire Kandukuru Division is much less than 50,000, as such there was no need for appointment of respondent No.3.

¶65

Under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 (for short ‘the Act’), where it appears to the State Government that any considerable number of the Mahommedans residents in any local area desires that^one or more Kazis should be appointed for such local area, it may after consulting the principal Mahommedans residents of such local area, select one or more fit persons and appoint him or them as Kazis for such local area. The Act does not place any fetters on the Government in appointing more than one Kazi. The

¶66

4 3 provisions of the Act also do not vest any right in the existing Kazi to claim exclusivity with respect to the area for which he was appointed.

¶67

The purported Guidelines on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance were stated to have been issued in connection with W.P.No.15316 of 2007, which is unconnected with the present case. At any rate, these Guidelines do not form part of the record of the present case and - they are not legally enforceable.

¶68

The Act does not recognize strict division of territorial areas between two or more Kazis and therefore, even if respondent No.3 was appointed for three Mandals, the petitioner is not prevented from discharging functions of Kazi for those three Mandals. Observing from this perspective the petitioner’s interests are not affected.

¶69

This Court finds that as per the Section 2 of the Kazis Act, there is no bar for functioning of Kazis more than one Kazi in respect of any local area. It is further observed that, the 3'^^ respondent herein was appointed in respect of three mandals out of 24 mandals for which, the petitioner was initially appointed. Even after the appointment of the 3'^'^ respondent as Kazi for three mandals and he did not precluded the petitioner to perform the duties within three mandals as Kazi. Therefore, the challenge of the Writ Petition in G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 30.03.2011 by the petitioner is not sustainable. But, for the reasons discussed above, both the petitioner as well as the 3^^ respondent

can

be continued as Kazis in respect of the subject area^{asperSection2of}

¶74

the Kazis Act, 1880.

¶75

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K J.RAJA BABU assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI. S A Razak Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI. Sita Ram Chaparla Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies

PHR

HIGH COURT

■ DATED:11/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.12044of 2011

CLOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Shaik Chand Basha v. The Govt. of A.P rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shaik Chand Basha v. The Govt. of A.P rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Chand Basha Vs Sashi Bhusan Kumar IAS

Shaik Chand Basha Vs Sashi Bhushan Kumar IAS

Pogula Sudheer Reddy Vs Sashi Bhusan Kumar IAS

Pragada Ravi Shankar Vs The Bank of Baroda

Uppu Siddhu, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

More Vinod, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh