SMT. MHATRE, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

2.The petition raises the question as to whether the Wakf Board has the power to appoint Kazis.

3.The petitioner claims that he is practising as a Kazi in Parbhani. According to him, his ancestors were Kazis and today the petitioner is the chief Kazi with 11 Naib Kazis working under him in Parbhani. The petitioner claims that his only source of income is the Kazaat. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Wakf Board dated 4/2/2005, appointing respondent no.3 as Qari-usn-Nikah (Naib Kazi) to perform marriages in the District of Parbhani. The Petitioner claims to have become aware of that order only in October 2006. Thereafter, according to the petitioner he had questioned the Wakf Board

i.e. respondent no.2, herein, regarding the appointment of respondent no.3 as Qari-usn-Nikah. The petitioner claims that his pleas to the Wakf Board, that the order in favour of respondent no.3 should be revoked, have fallen on deaf ears and hence this petition.

4.Mr.Kazi, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is recognised as a Kazi by the Wakf Board and has been vested with the powers of the Kazi as it is a hereditary office. He submits that since the ancestors of the petitioner were Kazis, this office has devolved on the petitioner by succession. The learned Advocate further submits that the Wakf Board had no power to appoint any person as a Kazi or Qari-usn-Nikah to perform marriages, and therefore, the appointment of respondent no.3 should be quashed and set aside. The foundation of this argument is based on the submission that all Kazis are to be appointed under The Kazis Act, 1880 (hereinafter referred to as the Kazis Act for the sake of brevity). Since the respondent no.3 was appointed by the Wakf Board and not by the State Government under the Kazis Act, the learned Advocate submitted that his appointment was invalid. To substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel submitted that it was only the petitioner who was entitled to perform marriages since forms were distributed to him by the Wakf Board for maintaining a record of all marriages performed in Parbhani District. The petitioner claims that these records have been maintained by him and his ancestors for generations and this by itself would, according to the petitioner, indicate that the office of the Kazi was a hereditary office and that nobody but he was entitled to practise as Kazi.

5.The first issue which arises is whether the petitioner has any locus to challenge the appointment of respondent no.3. It is only if the petitioner is able to demonstrate before this Court that he has an exclusive right to practise as Kazi, that the question of deciding the other issue, namely, whether the Wakf Board had a right to appoint Kazis, needs to be considered. We therefore, called upon the learned advocate for the petitioner to establish before us that the petitioner has locus to file the present petition and challenge the order of the Wakf Board.

6.The learned Advocate Mr.Kazi had submitted initially that only persons who are appointed under the Kazis Act, 1880 have the right to practise as Kazis and perform the functions of Kazis. In fact one of the grounds raised in the petition is that only the State Government is authorised to appoint Kazis under the Kazis Act and therefore, the appointment order issued in favour of respondent no.3 should be quashed. However, Mr. Kazi was unable to point out that the petitioner had been appointed under the Kazis Act. When confronted with this situation, he submitted that the Kazis Act was not applicable to the Marathwada region which fell within the Hyderabad State till 1956 and therefore, there was no question of producing any appointment order in favour of the petitioner under the Kazis Act.

7.This submission of the learned advocate cannot be accepted. The Kazis Act was made applicable to the Hyderabad State by a Noti