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 Government based on this desire.

JUDGMENT

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. - This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the impugned order dtd. 3/5/2023in W.P.No.6030 of 2023, seeks to set aside the order. Appellant is the Petitioner and Respondent Nos., 1 to 6 are the respondents in the W.P.

2. The Petitioner's case is, thus: -

a. The Government earlier appointed one Government Kazi in Kandukur town. Subsequently, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.55 dtd. 15/2/2023, [in short, 'G.O.'] appointed Respondent No.6 as a Kazi, for a Masjid in Kandukur town and Masjid in certain villages in Kandukur Mandal with a tenure of three (03) years for performing marriages in Mohammedan community.

b. Petitioner sought indulgence of the Court under Writ jurisdiction to set aside the G.O., referred above, since the appointment of Government kazi is in utter violation of the procedure contemplated under Sec. 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 (Act 12/1880).[in short, Act 12 of 1880.]

c. District Collector, Prakasam submitted a report dtd. 18/8/2022, stating that the principal Mohammedans are not interested in appointment of another government Kazi for that area. Ignoring the said report, government appointed another Kazi relying on the report submitted by the District Collector, Nellore.

3. Contention of the 6th Respondent: -

a. Attacking the petitioner's claim to set aside G.O., respondent No.6 contends that petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition, since he is neither a Kazi nor is affected in any manner by the appointment of 6th respondent as Government Kazi. His contention is that the litigation is a motivated one and the Petitioner was set up to file the W.P. as he happens to be the brother-in-law of the present Kazi.

b.Government appointed the 6th respondent as Kazi on the basis of report dtd. 11/1/2023, sent by the Collector, Nellore District since Kandukur town and Mandal falls within the limits of Nellore District, after bifurcation of the districts. The District Collector, Nellore observed that appointment of another Kazi is required as the present Kazi is collecting exorbitant fees for conducting marriages in the area.

4. After hearing both the learned counsel and on examination of material placed on record, learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, vide an order dtd. 3/5/2023, observing that in the absence ofcontravention to Sec.2 of Act12/1880, interference of the Court is not appropriate.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the Writ Petitioner carried the matter in the appeal on the following grounds:

a. The Tahasildar, Kandukur (5th respondent) issued a public notice calling the opinion or objections of the Muslims of Kandukur town relating to appointment of another Kaji on 18/2/2020.Appellant expressed his desire not to have another Kazi, which was recorded by 5th respondent.

b. Tahasildar in turn sent the report to District collector, Prakasam (3rd respondent), which was sent to the Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare Department (1st respondent) dtd. 18/8/2022, stating that five (05) Muslim organizations expressed their willingness for appointment of another Kazi, against which, eleven (11) applications received expressing their displeasure for appointment of another Government kazi. Hence file is not submitted to the government, since the subject matter is totally against the Kazis Act, 1880.

c. The District Collector further observed that most of the local Muslims of Kandukur town are not interested in appointment of another Kazi. The report of respondent No.4 is only indicating the jurisdiction.

d. The learned single Judge ought to have observed that initially Court granted interim suspension on perusal of the report sent by respondent No.3 and prima facie opined that the appointment of 6th respondent as Government Kazi, is without due consideration.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

6. Heard Sri Basheer Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for Minority Welfare Depar