Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda
Mohd Muzaffar Ali Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ of mandamus sought for inaction (Para 2) |
| 2. court's directive for the 1st respondent's action (Para 3) |
| 3. petitioner’s application pending since 2018 (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. writ petition allowed; illegal inaction (Para 8 , 9 , 12) |
| 5. interpretation of the kazi's act, 1880 (Para 10 , 16) |
| 6. reports supporting petitioner's relevance (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. government's authority under kazi's act (Para 19) |
ORDER :
Surepalli Nanda, J.
Heard Sri Y.Ashok Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and learned senior designated counsel Sri P.Venugopal representing Ms.P.Krishna Keerthana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 on record.
2. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under :
“…to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not considering Petitioner’s application dated 24/01/2018 and not passing the appropriate orders in accordance with law is illegal arb
The inaction of the government in appointing a petitioner as Kazi is arbitrary and violates principles of natural justice, holding that prior dismissal from Naib Kazi does not disqualify one for Kazi....
The dismissal of a Naib Qazi does not violate principles of natural justice where no legal or statutory rights exist for the position under Kazi's Act.
The court affirmed that the appointment of Khazis must follow the procedures outlined in the Khazi Act 1880, emphasizing local consultation and government authority.
The appointment of multiple Kazis must adhere to territorial demarcation and established procedures, with mere recommendations not infringing on existing appointments unless formally overlapping.
The appointment of a Kazi must involve consultation with local principal Muhammadan residents, and such appointments do not confer a legal right to claim the position.
The court affirmed vicarious liability of public officials for acts committed by subordinates in official capacity, directing action under relevant provisions of law for accountability.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of Kazis is based on the desire of the Muslim residents of the area, and any number of Kazis may be appointed by the Governmen....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
