Dismissed¶¶36

M.Mohamed Muneer v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC1 Apr 2025WP/9552/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kazi/Kazhi appointment Coimbatore; District Kazi notification open to any qualified Muslim; Dakni Muslim subsect exclusivity rejected; Khazi's Act has no subsect provision; appointment as secularly as possible, common to the religion; Hyder Ali settlement and 250-year custom claim; prior writ petition No.8910 of 2020 (Imthias Babu), status quo order, dismissed as abated 13.11.2024, substitution application; Article 226 mandamus dismissed, W.M.P.No.10710 of 2025 closed, no costs; Madras High Court, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, 01.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notification does not exclude any person, and appointment as Kazi cannot be restricted only to a particular subsect, since Coimbatore has become a metropolitan city where Muslims from various places with different traditional practices have settled. ¶¶34

M.Mohamed Muneer Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether, in appointing a Kazi for Coimbatore pursuant to the fresh notification, eligibility may lawfully be confined to the Urdu speaking Dakni Muslim Sect as prayed by the petitioners, or must remain open to any qualified Muslim irrespective of subsect.

¶¶17

Court's answer

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

There is no provision in the Khazi's Act confining the appointment to a subsect; any person who is qualified will be considered by the Government in accordance with the law and appointed.

¶¶34

Key takeaways

Offices of this kind should be appointed as secularly as possible, common to the religion, without any right to any subsect.ratio¶¶34
No error was found in the impugned notification.ratio¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.No.9552 of 2025 (with W.M.P.No.10710 of 2025), High Court of Judicature at Madras, single Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, decided 01.04.2025 — Mandamus under Article 226 directing the District Collector, Coimbatore to appoint a Kazi for Coimbatore from the Urdu speaking Dakni Muslim Sect, resting on the claim (per affidavit) that the sect settled under Hyder Ali and that for the past 250 years only Dakni Muslims held the office. Background: an earlier similar notification drew writ petition No.8910 of 2020 (Imthias Babu) with a status quo order; it was dismissed as abated on 13.11.2024, after which the fresh notification was issued. Holding: the impugned notification excludes no person; metropolitan Coimbatore hosts Muslims of various traditions, so appointment cannot be restricted to a particular subsect; the Khazi's Act contains no subsect provision and any qualified person will be considered by the Government and appointed in accordance with law; such offices should be filled as secularly as possible, common to the religion, without subsect rights; no error found in the notification. Disposition: writ petition dismissed, connected miscellaneous petition closed, no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.9552 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.No.9552 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.10710 of 2025

¶9

M.MOHAMED MUNEER

¶10

A.SUHALE

¶11

... Petitioner

¶12

¶13

THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, BACK WARD CLASSES, MOST BACKWARD CLASSES AND MINORITIES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE,

¶14

CHENNAI - 600 009.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COIMBATORE.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to appoint Kazhi for Coimbatore, from the Urdu speaking Dakni Muslim Sect of Coimbatore Town.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajarajan for Mr.S.Keran

¶19

For R1 & R2 : Mr.V.Manoharan Additional Government Pleader

¶20

1/5

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No.9552 of 2025

¶23

O RDER

¶24

The writ petition is filed with a prayer to appoint a Kazi for Coimbatore

¶25

from the Urdu speaking Dakni Muslim Sect of Coimbatore Town.

¶26

Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the Dakni Muslim sect settled in Coimbatore during the period of Hyder Ali and for the past 250 years, only persons belonging to the Dakni Muslim sect have been appointed as Kazi. Therefore, when the customary practices have always been followed, now suddenly an advertisement has been issued inviting applications from any Muslim for the District Kazi post. As a matter of fact, earlier when a similar notification was issued, one Imthias Babu approached this Court by way of writ petition No.8910 of 2020 and a status quo order was granted. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as having become abated on 13.11.2024 and therefore, the notification is issued again.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that subsequently, an application for substitution has also been filed. Be that as it may, the writ petition relates to the 2020 notification. Now we are concerned with the fresh notification and he also submits that since Muslim law is based

¶28

2/5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.9552 of 2025

¶31

on Quranic and customary practices, it should be strictly implemented when it comes to the appointment of a Kazi.

¶32

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material records of the case.

¶33

It may be true that the Dakni Muslim sect settled in Coimbatore town

¶34

and has been administering the Jamaat an will have several members in the Jamaat. The impugned notification does not exclude any person. Coimbatore has since become a metropolitan city, where Muslims from various places with different traditional practices have settled. Therefore, it cannot be restricted only to a particular subsect. As a matter of fact, there is no such provision in the Khazi’s Act. Any person who is qualified will be considered by the Government in accordance with the law and they will be appointed. Therefore, these kind of offices should be appointed as secularly as possible, common to

¶35

the religion, without any right to any subsect. I do not find any error whatsoever in the impugned notification.

¶36

Accordingly, finding no merit, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶37

3/5

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.No.9552 of 2025

¶40

01.04.2025 2/2

¶41

Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsl

¶42

¶43

THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, BACK WARD CLASSES, MOST BACKWARD CLASSES AND MINORITIES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI - 600 009.

¶44