The Kerala High Court considered the extent of mandatory consultation under the Kazis Act, 1880, regarding the appointment of Kazis. The court held that consultation is directory and required only before final selection and appointment, rejecting the view that it must precede the shortlist formulation.
Writ Appeals dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 30TH MAGHA, 1939
WA.No. 326 of 2018 IN WPC. 21813/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21813/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 12-10-2017
APPELLANT(S)/(PETITIONER)
HAJI P. AHAMED MUSLIAR PATHADA. S/O.MUSAMMIL,RESIDING AT ALIMECHATTA HOUSE, KADAMATH ISLAND,U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.) SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.N.DEEPA
RESPONDENT(S)/(RESPONDENTS):
1. U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR,KAWARATHI, LAKSHADWEEP,PIN-682555.
2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP,KAWARATHI,PIN-682555.
3. THE DIRECTOR, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND PROTOCOL,U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAWARATHI,PIN-682555.
4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAMAT ISLAND,U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP,KAWARATHI,PIN-682586.
5. P.P.MOHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 52 YEARS,KADAMAT ISLAND,U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAWARATHI,PIN-682586.
R1 -R 4 BY ADV. SRI.MANU.S, CGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP
R5 BY ADV. A.A. ZIYAD RAHIMAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-02-2018, ALONG WITH WA NO.274/2018 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JJJ
ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. &
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
Writ Appeal Nos. 326 & 274 of 2018
Dated: 19th February, 2018
J U D G M E N T
Antony Dominic, C.J.
These appeals arise from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.21813 & 20926 of 2017.
with the principal Muhammadan residents of the local area to which appointment of Kazis is to be made, has to be at the first instance or only at the time of selection
and appointment from among fit persons. The issue
W.A. Nos. 326 & 274/2018
-2-
was raised in the context of steps having been taken by the official respondents for appointment of Kazis for Kadamath Island. The question raised has to be answered in the light of Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880, which reads as under:
“2. Power to appoint Kazis for any local area :- Wherever it appears to the 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 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 State Government shall be conclusive.
The 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
W.A. Nos. 326 & 274/2018
-3-
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 State Government unfit, or personally incapable, to discharge the duties of the office.”
3. A reading of this provision makes it clear that,
consultation with the principal Muhammadan residents of the local area, shall be only before selection of one or more fit persons and his/their appointments as Kazis for such local area. In a process of selection, as in these cases, there are several candidates in this field and if the contention of the appellants is accepted, immediately on finalisation of the list of candidates, the consultation should be completed and it is only thereafter can selection and appointment follow. According to us, a reading of Section 2 would make it amply clear that the obligation of the State Government
W.A. Nos. 326 & 274/2018
-4-
for consultation itself is housed in directory terms and the State Government may not be bound by the views expressed by the principal Muhammadan residents of the local area in question. There is no indication in the section that the obligation of the State, if at all, is resorted to this consultation process on finalisation of the list of candidates, but such obligation is only before selection and appointment. Therefore, the State is always at liberty to finalise the select list and then complete the consultation process and make appointment from that list.
W.A. Nos. 326 & 274/2018
-5-
Selection Committee is a person belonging to one of the factions in the Island and therefore, should not have been entrusted with the task of being a member of selection and appointment. According to us, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, in the absence of the Chairman being made a party to the writ petition, this Court would not be justified in taking cognizance of the said plea. We therefore, do not find any merit in the Writ Appeals.
The Writ Appeals are dismissed. No Costs
Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE.
Sd/DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
jjj 20 /02/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether consultation with principal Muhammadan residents is required only before appointment or at the first instance of selection.
Whether the Chairman of the Selection Committee belonging to a faction affects the validity of the appointment process.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sayed Ahamedkoya Thangal v. AdministratorReferred¶47
Sayed Ahamedkoya Thangal v. Administrator - 1997 (2) K.L.J. 362
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Haji P. Ahamed Musliar Pathada
Union Territory of Lakshadweep
The Administrator, U.T. of Lakshadweep
The Director, General Administration and Protocol
The Sub Divisional Officer
P.P. Mohammed Basheer
Antony Dominic
Dama Seshadri Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
