Dismissed

Mohammed Shakeel Ahmed v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Apr 2022WP/7258/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition filed by a Deputy Khazi challenging a Government Order appointing five new Khazis. The court held the petitioner did not have independent locus standi as he was not appointed as Khazi and could not file as a proxy for the actual Khazi.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed declaring the petitioner devoid of merits and lacking locus standi.

Mohammed Shakeel Ahmed Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

t³¹⁶⁷ I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

I\4ONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7258 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Shakeel Ahmed, S/o Mohammed Abdul Ghani, Occu. Dy. Qazi, R/o.H.No.6-8-57, Gandhi Nagar, Tandur, Vikarabad District.

¶9

..Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Minorities welfare(ESTT. l)Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Vikarabad District.

¶13

The Chief Executive Officer, Telangana state Wakf Board, Hajj^House, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶14

Sri Md.Shakeel Ahmed, S/o Md.Ghousuddin, Occu. Business, R/o Kumar galli, Tandur. Vikarabad District.

¶15

Mohammed Rahmath Ali, S/o Hashim Ali, Occu. Business, R/o Wadder^galli, Tandur. Vikarabad District.

¶16

Syed Suleman Hashmi, S/o lt/d. Afzal Noor khan, Occu. Business,^{R/o Momin} galli, Tandur. Vikarabad District.

¶17

7 Md.Amair Noor khan, S/o tVd Afzal Noor Khan, Occu. Business, R/o Shaipur , Tandur, Vikarabad District.

¶18

B Hussain Ahrned, S/o Saber Ahmed, Occu. Business, R/o lndra nagar, Tandur. Vikarabad District.

¶19

...Respondents

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in issuing G.O.Ms.No. 5 dated 221112022 as illegal arbitrary, colourable exercise of official^powers against the principles of natural lustice and violative of Articles 14,15,16 and 21 of Constitution of lndia, consequently set aside the G.O,lt/s.No, 5 dated 221^112022,

¶21

lA NO: I OF 2022

¶22

Petition under section 151.cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support.of the puiitio,n, inliiin.corrt may be pteased to the G.o.Ms No. 5 dated ilrotiiozz,'iuniYns orspo.rr or the main writ ;$i:f

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner:

¶24

SRl. M A MUJEEB

¶25

Counset for the Respondent No 1 & 2: cp FOR MtNORITY WELFARE

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent No 3: SRI ABU AKRAM

¶27

The Court made the following

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{A. ABHISHEK REDDY}

¶30

WRIT PETITI^{ON No. 7258 of 2022}

¶31

ORDEIT:

¶32

Seeking to declare^{G.O.Ms.No5, Minorities Welfare (ESTT'D} Deparlment,^{dated22.01'.2022, wherebythe respondent No'1 has appointed} the respondent^{Nos.4 to 8 as Government Khazisin Tandur Municipal} Area,VikarabadDistrict,asillegalanclarbirrary,thepetitionerhasfiledthe present writ Petition.

¶33

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner has stated that the petitionerhas} been appointed^{as Deputy Khazi for Tanduraide order daled 25'07201'9'} The learned counsel^{has further statedthat the petitioner is working under} one Mohammed^{Mustafa Siddiqui, whohasbeen appointedas Government} Khazi for Tandur^{oide G.o.Ms.No.13,Minorities Welfare (ESTT.I)} Department, dated^{19.06.2019,for aperiod of three years'and therefore' he} has locus standi^{to chalienge the impugned G'O'}

¶34

Per contra,^{the learned counselappearing on behalf of the unofficial} respondentshasstatedthatthepetitionelhasnolocusstanditochallenge the impugned^{G.O., as he is not an authorizedperson'The learned counsel} hasdrawntheattentionofthisCourttoG'OMsNo13'dated19'06'2019'

¶35

especially Clause^{9 thereof, according to which' the Khazi shall appoint not} more than three^{Naib Khazis and the names of such Naib Khazissha11be}

¶36

informed to^{the Government But' tilldate' ' there is no official} *'... ,/

¶37

¶38

corununication to the Government by the said Mohammed Mustafa Siddiqui with regard to the appointment of the petitioner herein as Naib Khazi/Deputy Khazi. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the list of the persons, who are stated to have been appointed by the Khazi. The said list discloses that approximately 25 persons have been appointed Naib Khazis, but, as per G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 19.06.2079, only three persons can be appointed as Naib Khazis. The learned counsel has further stated that the said Mohammed Mustafa Siddiqui is not discharging his duties as Khazi, as he is held up at United States of America since the last more than three years. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition discloses that at paragraph No.8, the petitioner has stated as under:

¶40

" Mohd, Mustafa Siddiqui uent to U.S.A. for the purpose of treatment to his mother and unfortunately his mother expired rohile undergoing treatment in U.S.A. and tfureafter he is stuck in Ll.S.A. due to traoel restrictions and he ruill certainly return to India as nnd rtlrcn international traoel restictions are lifted but tlu office of eazi is being run under his name and seal only and we as Deputy Qnzis are perfornting all the duties zuithout compromise in the sentices and local residents nre uery much happy toith our seruices."

¶41

Except making a blanket statement that he is authorized by the said Mohammed Mustafa Siddiqui to file the present writ petition, the petitioner

I tI

! I 1

has not filed any scrap of paper. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the present writ petition is filed in the name of the said Mohammed Mustafa Siddiqui.

¶46

Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working as Naib Khazi is taken to be frue, the fact remains that he is challenging the G.o whereby the respondent No.1 has appointed five members as Khazis. The petitioner, admittedly, cannot file the present writ petition as he is not appointed as Khazi. Even though the rearned counsel for the petitioner has stated that if the order of appointment is not stayed, the right of the petitioner to work as a Naib Khazi will get effected, and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable, the same cannot be countenanced. The petitioner cannot fight the litigation as a proxy for the actual persor-r who has been appointed as a Khazi.

¶47

It is apt to refer to Section 3 of the Kazis Act, Lgg0, which reads as

¶48

under:

¶49

"3, Nqib Ka'zi's. - Any Ka,zi, appointed under this Act may appoint one or more persons as his Naib or Naibs to act in his place in all or any of the matters appertaining to his ofice throughout tfu tohole or in any portion of the local area for tuhich he is appointed, an may suspend or remoue any nnib so nppointed.

¶50

When any Ka'zi' is suspenfud or remoaed. under Section 2, his naib or naibs (if any) shall be deemed to be suspenrled or remor_ted, as the case mny be."

¶51

¶52

¶53

Admittedly, in the instant case, sri Moharnmerl Mustafa siddiqui has been appointed as Government Khazi for Tandur, Vikarabad District, for a period of three years uide G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 19.06.20l.9. But, the present writ petition is not filed by the said person and is filed by the petitior-rer, who claims to be Naib Khazi working under him.

¶54

In view of the above, this Court is of the primafacie opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is only claiming to be Naib Khazi. If the Khazi, Mohammed Mustafa siddiqui, is aggrievecl by the impugned order of appointment of the Khazis, he can directly file a writ petition challenging the same, but, there cannot be any proxy for filing a writ petition. Moreover, it is stated that the said Mohammed Mustafa siddiqui is not discharging his duties as Khazi since the last more than three years and he is held up at United states of America, and the said fact has not been denied by the petitioner herein.

¶55

Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶56

Miscellaneous applications , if any pending, shalr stand crosed. There shall be no order as to costs. \

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,