Dismissed

Qazi Ahmed Masood Moinuddin v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2024WP/6137/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two petitioners claiming Naib Kazi lineage challenged the State's appointment of Mohammed Sirajuddin as Government Kazi for Sultan Bazar Zone. Holding consultation with principal Muhammadan residents under Section 2 had occurred and no legal right vested in the petitioners, the Court dismissed both writ petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Qazi Ahmed Masood Moinuddin Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETlTlONdNo. otsz and 6977 OF 2023

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.6137 of 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Qazi Ahmed tvlasood Moinuddin, S/o. Qazi^{lVohd.Shujauddin, Age. 50 years,} Occ. Qazi, Rl/o. H.No.'18-8-589/40, L.C.H.^Kumaruuadi Colony,^Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Tetangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary^{tVinority Welfare Dept} Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad Dist, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Mandal and^District.

¶15

4 Mohd. Sirajuddin, S/o. Late Mohd. Mazharuddin,^{Aged Major Occ. Not know,} N o. 12-2-4, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Con stitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith. the Hiqh Court rgt^be pleased to issue a Writ of lr/andamus or Irny other appropriate Writ, oider^or direction declaring the action of the^1"t Respondent in issuing^imPugned GO.Ms.No.9, MWD, dated 06.02.^{2023 the} reby appointed 4th Respondent as Govt. Qazi for the area of^{Sultan Bazar} Zone, Hyderabad considering the recommendation of MLA Nampally^constitu( >ncy, ignoring the application of the petitioner 11t01t2o17 who is Naib Oazi of' Govt. appointed Qazi is^arbitrary, without authority,^power, iurisdiction^{and illegt} al and in violation of Section 2 of^Kazi Act 1880, Article 14 of constitution^{of lndia and Principles of Natural Justiceand} decided decision Reported in^{1996(2)ALD661 DB by the Hon'ble HighCourt}

¶18

consequently to set aside^{impugned GO.Ms No'9,Ir'4W D, dated06 02'2023of the} 1.t Respondent and to consider^{the applicationof the petitioner pending with the} 1't Respondent since 2009^{forthwithin the interestof justice.}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High Courtmay be pleased to} suspend the^{impugned G.O.Ms.No.9IVIWD dated 06.02.2023 of the 1"t} Respondent appointing^{the 4th Respondentas Govt. Khazi pendingthe writ} petition in the interest of^justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SR. SHAFATH AHMED KHAN}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 and 3: GP FORREVENUE}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4: SRI ZULFAQUAR ALAM}

¶25

WRlT PETITION NO: 6977 OF 2023

¶26

Between:

¶27

Qazi l\4ohd.Ab<jul Wahid Qureshi,^{S/o.Qazi Mohd.AbdulAziz Qureshi,Aged} about 60 years, Occ. Qazi, Rl/o.H.No.1B-8-2441C122,^{Moinbagh,Fateh Shah} Nagar, Hyderabad-TS

¶28

,..PETITIONER

¶29

AND

¶30

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by^its Principal^{Secretary,Minoritiesand} Welfare Deparlment, Secretariat at Hyderabad

¶31

2 The District Collector, Nampally, Hyderabad-TS

¶32

tvlohammed Sirajuddin, S/o.Late Mohammed^{MazheruddinNo 12-24,Asi'f} Nagar, Hyderabad-TS

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the Records in connection with G.O.lr/s.No.9 dt.06-03-

¶35

2023 passed by the Respondent No.1 despite receiving Petitioners Application dt.20-12-2022 along with relevant papers by declaring it as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory in nature, violative of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia, and selaside the same.

¶36

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶37

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the operation of the p.O.Ms.No.9 dt.06-03-2023 passed by the Respondent No.'1 by further directing him to consider the Petitloner's Application dl.2O-12-2O22 forthwith, in the,interest of^{justicepending} disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. K. JAMALI

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI ZULFAQUAR ALAM

¶42

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶43

try-r':i'

¶44

¶45

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶46

WRIT PETITIONS No. 6137 6h6977 OF 2o23

¶47

COMMON ORDER:

¶48

Both the Writ Petitions question the uires of G.O.Ms.No. 9, MwD, dated 06.02.2O23 of the l"t respondent - Sate of Telangana by which one^.Mohamrned Sirajuddin was appointed as government Kazi for Sultan Bazar Zone, Hyderabad. Hence, they are being taken up together for consideration and disposal by way of a common order.

¶49

WRIT PETITION No. 6137 OF 2o23

¶50

I)etitioner in this Writ Petition contends that his paternal uncle Mohammed Zaheeruddin was the hereditary Kazi of Qazaath Siultan Bazar appointed by the government uide G.O.Ms. No. 923/HOME (General-A) Department, dated 29.06.1977 for the area of Qazaath Sultan Bazar (Residency area). The functions of Kazi are to perform marriages. decide matrimonial issues, religious, secular duties etc. and functions in the area. The said Mohammed Zaheeruddin appointed petitioner as Naib Kazi. Due to ill-health, his uncle submitted Application clated O2.O2-2O09 before the l"t respondent to appoint petilioner as Kazi for the subject area since he

¶51

¶52

¶53

possesses all requisite qualifications i.e., Modern education B.Com as well as Qazaatlr' examination conducted by Jamia Nizamia, a well known renowned tslamic University, Hyderabad in 1997 itself. However, in spite of representation dated ll.Ol.2ol7 before the 1"t respondent and the one dated O2.O2.2023 to the 2"d respondent, his case was not considered. Subsequently, he came to know that the lst respondent issued the impugned GO. unilaterally appointing a non-local individual, R/o Asif Nagar as Kazi for Sultan Bazar zone without following the due process of law, in violation of Section 2 of the Kazi Act, 1880 (for short, 'the ActJ on the basis of

¶54

recommendation of MLA, Nampally Constituency in utter disregard to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Intezami Committee Mozid-DOsmania a. A.P. State Waqf Boardl. Petitioner contends further that as a Naib Kazi, he performed mrmber of marriages in Sultan Bazar area during the period of his paternal uncle as Government Kazi and Mohammedans of Sultan Bazar area including the surrounding areas such as King Koti, Jam Bagh, etcetera are familiar to him. It is relevant to mention herein that all the Official records of

¶55

'^{r996(2) ALD 661 (D.B.)}

.i'i.f:

marriages conrain^{performanceof his paternaluncle as Kazi} and himself^{as; Naib Kazi. He is not onlyqualihed person but} also in all respects^{the mostsuitable for the post of Government} Kazi for Sultan^{BzrzarArea,claims petitioner'}

¶60

Learned counsel for^{petitionerSri Shafath Ahmed} Khan submits^{that as per dection2 of the Act, appointmentof} Kazi shall emanate^{from the principalMohammedanof the area} who should forward^{their proposal to the l"t respondent, which,} in turn, shar l, if thinks^{Iit for the proposeddemandof} appointment <tf^{Kazi in a particulararea after consultingthe} principal Mohammadan^{of suchlocal area, select one or more ht} persons and a.ppoint him^{or them as Khazi for such localarea'} However, in this case, the^{local MLA issued recommendation} letter in favour of^{the 4rh respondent, as is evident from para 3} of the report d.ated^{24.11.2O22submitted by the 2"d respondent} and the report dated^{22.06.2022 ofthe 3'd respondent-} Revenue Divisrir;nal Ofhcer.^{Accordingto the learnedcounsel,} the check list of the^{2"d respondent - DistrictCollectorthat} there is vacancy^{of Kaztin Sultan Bazar area is not correct but} misleading. It rs submitted^{that there are contingencies under} which the Naib Kazi^{appointed underSection 3 of the Act ceases}

¶61

¶62

¶63

to functionl they are 1) removal from the post by the government and 2) when suspended by the government, but the said two conditions are not applicable to the case of petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that petitioner temporarily visited Gulf country on business purpose, therefore, the information in the check list was false, which clearly reflects that it was prepared with an aim to appoint the 4fr respondent as government kazi in the light of the recommendation letter i the MLA, Nampal1y.

¶64

The 4n respondent puts-forth his case in the counter as under:

¶65

Appointment as Government Kazi is not an employment and petitioner cannot claim such appointment as a matter of right. Further, strictly as per Section 2 of tl:,e Act, the 2"d respondent District Collector, Hyderabad, after consulting number of local Principal Mohammadans, residents of Sultan Bazar locality, found fit person for appointment as Government Kazi and the decision of the State Government shall be conclusive. It is stated that this Court had already determined the similar issue in Writ Petition No. 25243 of 2021, by order dated 3i.03.2O22 (M.D. Rafil-uddin v. State of Telangana) and

¶66

)

¶67

the present Vrrit Petition^{is liable to be dismissedThe case of} this respondent is after^{the death of Mohd Zaheeruddin,} petitioner cannot claim^{as lega1right fbr his appointmentas a} Kazi for the same area and^{the momentMohd Zaheeruddin} dies, petition<:r's Naib^{Kazishipceases.}

¶68

Learned couns.l for the^{4th respondentsubmits that} the letler of^{1-he MLA neitherclog nor impingethe government} from following due^{process of law and the said letter was onlya} supporting letter and it^{is not at all utter disregard to the orders} passed bl, this Court. It is also^{statedthat the goverrrment-} appointed Kazt for Sultan^{Bazardied on l3.l1.2ol7,hence the} government rightly shown in its^{list Government Kazi post as} vacant for Sultan Bazar^{area. Further,petitionerwas out of} country on prersonal^{business purposeat the time of enquiry,} hence the government cannot^{wait for his arrlval for} appointment as Kazi..

¶69

I{aving perused the record,^{proceedings ofthe} Revenue Divisional Ofhcer^{dated 22.06.2022and report of the} District Collector dated 24.11.2022^{denonstratethatthree} applicants u'ere seeking^{appointmentas government Kazr for} Sulthan Bazr area, out^{of them, with regard to the Application of}

¶70

¶71

Sri Mohammed Sirajuddin, the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Hyderabad Division submitted that the matter got enquired by the Tahsildar, Nampally Tahsil and reported that he was working in Qazaath Quila Mohammed Nagar, Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy Districts as Deputy Kazi, Asllnagar Area and performing marriages in the said area of Muslim community since 2OO8 till date and local mohammedans had expressed their satisfaction for his servi.ce and proposed to appoint him for Sultan Bazar Zone. ln respect of the other two; 1) petitioner - Sri Ahmed Masood Moinuddin, it was reported that he was ab.oad and he would return India after three months, as such no further action in this regard for the present; and 2) as regards Sri Hahz Mohammed Azrr.atb, it was reported that he involved in sexual offence and a case was registered under POCSO Act, 2072 on the file of Kanchanbagh Police Station, hence, his case could not be considered. The certificate issued by Quazi Mohammed Zaheeruddin, Government Kazr dated 19.Ol .2022 was annexed to the counter-affidavit filed by the 4tt' respondent. Learned counsel for petitioner placed on'record the judgment in Intezami Committee Mazid-DOsmania's case (supra) and submits that appointment of the 4m respondent as

¶72

¶73

suggested by the^{Memberof Legislative Assembly is not valid' At} this^{jr-rncture,Lt is relevant to referto Section 2 of Tlne KazisAct'}

¶74

1880

¶75

it appears to the^{StateGovernmentthat any considerablenumber of the} Muhammadans^{resident in anylocal area desire thatone or more Ka2i's} should be appointed^{for suchl6ca1 area, theState Oovernment may' if it} thinks fit, aftel consulting^{the principalMuhammadan residentsof such} local area, select^{one or more ht persons andappointhim or them to be} Kazi's for such local^area.

¶76

If an], question arises^{whether any personhas been rightly} appointed Kazi' under^{thissection,the decision thereofby the State} Governrnent shall^{be conclusive"}

¶77

It may be noted that^{the procedurefor appointment} of Kazis, as erlvisaged^{underSection 2 extractedabove, nrakes it} clear that rf the^{governmentthinks it fit, it can consultprincipal} Muhammadall residents^{of the local area toenquireinto} suitabiiity of a^{particular individual for the position of Kazi'} Furthermore, if any^{question arises whetherany person has} rightly been rlppointed^{as Kazi or not, the decision thereofby} Lhc State Government^{sha1lbe conclusiveWhcn the provision} under Section^{2 empowersthe State Governmentto consult} local principal^{Muhammadan residents,there is, undoubtedly,} an ingredient of^{consultation and obtaining opinion of princ'i'-'^t}

¶78

¶79

Muhammadan residents of the locality with respect to suitability of the individual. Therefore, the recommendation of the local MLA though apparently supports the suitability of the present incumbent by way of attesting to his knowledge of rites and ceremonies for the purpose of carrying o:ut Kazi duties, the very alleged recommendation itself cannot be said to have unduly weighed in favour of the incumbent, thereby, influencing the judgment of respondent authorities.

¶80

t-)

¶81

In the light of the same, the^judgment relied on by the learned counsel, wherein the subject matter relates to appointment of members of Committee for declaring a property as wakf property, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as, in the present case, the role of consultation, taking opinion of principal muhammadan communit5r of the locality is significant in assessing suitability of an individual for the position ol Kazi. In view of the above discussion, it can be held that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the 1"t respondent-

¶82

UIRIT PETITION No. 6977 of 2023:

¶83

9 Petitioner in this Writ Petition claims to have worked as Naib Kazi under Sadar Qazi Mohammed Zaheeruddin

¶84

¶85

from 1994 onu.arcls till^{2006 and performedthe functions of} Kazi for Sultan Bazar by virtue^{of GeneralPowerof Attorney} dated 29.O9.1994 issued^{by the said Zhheeruddin' It is stated} that he also worked as^{Naib Kazi under Kazi AbdulMahmood} Qureshi^{of Ya.kutpuraDivision who is his elderbrother from} 2OO7 Ltll date. When the rebresentations^{dated 19 O2'2O22and} 17.O3.2O22 ilddressed to the^{1"trespondent were not} considered, pr:titioner is^{stated to have fi1ed Writ Petition No'} 16586 of 202 2 u,hich was disposed^{of on 01.04'2022 drrecting} hrm to mtrke an Application to the^{2"d respondent District} Collector for trppointment^{as Naib Kazi withintu'o rveeks from} the date of re'ceipt of a copy of^{the said order and withintwo} u.eeks thereafler, he shail consider^{and pass appropriateorders} in accordance with law. However,^{the 1st respondentdid not act} on his Application dated 20.12.2022^{and he came to knou' that} one Mohamnred Sirajuddin,^{arrayed as 3'd respondcnt} "vas appointed as^Sada r Kazi.

¶86

L,3errned counsel for^{petitionerSri K.Jamali} submits that <lespite the^{order in Writ PetitionNo' 16586 of} 2022, ttre Apgrlication^{of petitioner was not considered'}

¶87

¶88

Learned counsel for the 3.d .^{respondent while} denying the averments of petitioner, submits that petitioner has not lrled the alleged Application dated. 20.12.2022 to the 1st respondent or any official concerned, hence, the question of considering his case as Sadar Kazi does not arise. He further submits that the issue involved in this case was already dealt with in Writ Petition No. 25243 of 2021, by order dated 31.03.2022, hence, this Writ Petition is also liable to be dismissed in terms thereof. According to him, as per the 1880 Act, there is no provision, rules, regulations in the said Act that confers / delegates power for government appointed Sadar Qazi to appoint any other person as General Power of Attorney for performing his duties on his behalf.

¶89

¶90

This Court in Writ Petition No. 25243 of 2021 held that 'Further, from the checklist for oppointment as Gouemment Kozi enclosed to the said recommendation of the third respondent also if rs euident that necessary consultotion utas alreadg done, as required under Section 2 of the Kozis Act, 1880. Therefore, ttrc main ground on uhich the present Wit Petition is fiIed is found to be not corect. Further, the appointment as Gouentment Ko-zi is not an emploAment and no ight is conferred upon the petitioner

¶91

¶92

¶93

claimed in ttre Writ Petition,^{which,therefore, is liable to be}

¶94

dismissed

¶95

l4 Both the Writ Petitions are^{accordingly, dismissed.}

¶96

No costs

¶97

15 IVliscelianeous Applications, if any shall^stand

¶98

closed

¶99

SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶100

/iTRUE COPY// . . _.. r!'^</sup>

¶101

SETIION OFFICER

¶102

To,

¶103

One CC to Sri Shafath^{AhmedKhan, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶104

¶105

2 One CC to^lVl/s. K.Jamali,^{Advocate[OPUC]} 2 One CC to Sri zulfaquar^{alam, Advocate} tgPUCl

¶106

4 i*" CCri" Cp toiSoiirf^{W6tfare,High-Court fbr the State of Telangana,at} Hvderabad [OL.lT] i;;"ae;t'ii" bp to|. Revenue,^{HighCourt for the State of Telangana'at} Hyderabad[OPUC]

¶107