The appointment made under the Kazis Act, 1880, shall not prevent any person from discharging the functions of a Kazi.

Headnote:
Kazis Act - Appointment of Kazi - S.2, S.4 - Ext. P4 notice issued for appointment of 'Kazi' for Juma Masjid at Andrott - Court discusses the legality of the notice under the Kazis Act, 1880, and the appointment process. The court interprets the provisions of S.2 and S.4 and concludes that the appointment made under the Act shall not prevent any person from discharging the functions of a Kazi. The court dismisses the challenge against Ext. P4.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenges Ext. P4, a notice issued for the appointment of a 'Kazi' for Juma Masjid at Andrott, claiming that the position of Kazi is hereditary and only a member of the deceased Kazi's family can function as a 'Kazi'.
Finding of the Court:

The court analyzes the provisions of the Kazis Act, 1880, and concludes that the appointment made under the Act shall not prevent any person from discharging the functions of a Kazi. The court dismisses the challenge against Ext. P4.
Issues: The issues include the hereditary nature of the position of Kazi, the legality of the appointment process under the Kazis Act, and the involvement of Scholars from the main land in the appointment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interprets the provisions of S.2 and S.4 of the Kazis Act, 1880, and emphasizes that the appointment made under the Act shall not prevent any person from discharging the functions of a Kazi.
Final Decision: The court dismisses the challenge against Ext. P4, upholding the appointment process under the Kazis Act, 1880.

Judgment :-

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

Challenge in this Original Petition is against Ext. P4, a notice issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, the 2nd respondent. The petitioner seeks a direction not to give effect to Ext. P4 notice.

2. By Ext. P4, the 2nd respondent has invited application from interested persons for appointment of 'Kazis for Juma Masjid at Andrott in the vacancy caused due to the death of the then existing 'Kazi' namely one Pattakal Pookkoya Thangal. Ext. P4 shows that appointment is intended in terms of the Kazis Act, 1880, and that such notice was issued upon instruction from the Administrator of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. It is further stated that applications received will be considered on the basis of an interview by a Committee consisting of Scholars from the main land.

3. The petitioner submits that he is a member of Pattakal tharvadu to which the deceased' Kazi' belonged. He submits that the position of Kazi' is hereditary and only a member of the said family can function as a'Kazi'. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to function in place of the deceased' Kazi' and therefore there is no reason to issue Ext. P4 notice.

4. It is contended that under S.2 of the Kazis Act, a Kazi can be appointed only to any local area and not to a Masjid as mentioned in Ext. P4. Ext. P4 does not mention any area to which the Kazi has to be appointed. It is also contended that a'4Kazi' under the said Act can be appointed only when "any considerable number of the Muhammadans resident in any local area desire that one or more Kazi should be appointed for such local area". In such case, "the principal Muhammadan residents of such local area" shall be consulted and one or more fit persons can be selected for appointment of Kazi for such area. Ext. P4 does not conform to this, the petitioner contends.

5. Ext. P4 is only a notice inviting application. Normally, a Juma Masjid is for a local area. Merely because no local area is mentioned, or anything about the desire of considerable number of Muhammadans is not mentioned in Ext. P4, it cannot be said to be illegal. Only at the time of appointment it need be - looked into whether requirement of S.2 of the said Act had been complied with. It is contended by the Additional 3rd respondent that there was a request by the local residents for appointment of Kazi. Consultation with the principal Muhammadan residents need be made only at the time of appointment. It is true that Ext. P4 make mention of appointment by a Committee including the Scholars of the main land. Such a Committee is not envisaged by S.2. But if there are more contestant applicants, in order to consider the suitability, an administrative authority can always appoint a Committee to interview the candidates and to ascertain the suitability. That is not prohibited by the Act. There is no consultation with the interview committee. Consultation shall always be with principal Muhammadans of such local area. Occasion for consultation arise only after the interviewing committee selects suitable candidates. Therefore, there is nothing illegal in constituting the committee including the Scholars of the main land, to select candidates.

6. The further contention is that the deceased Kazi was not one appointed under the Act. The Kazis Act was made applicable to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep as per Regulation No. 2/1970. It is not clear when the deceased Kazi was first appointed. If it is earlier than 1970 naturally, it cannot be under the Act as the Act was not enforced at that time. In such case, the ensuing appointment will be the first appointment after the enforcement of the Act. That shall be necessarily as per the Act. Even if the deceased Kazi had been appointed alter the enforcement of the Act, there is nothing illegal in appointing a Kazi in terms of the said Act. As per S.4 of the Kazis Act, nothing contained in the Act or any appointment made under the Act shall be deemed to prevent any person discharging any of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document