1. The petitioner who is the existing Kazi filed this writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in appointing the 2nd respondent a Government Kazi for Prathipadu and Kakumanu Mandals, Guntur District vide G.O. Rt. No. 131 Minorities Welfare (IDM) Department dated 10.3.2019 without there being any requirement, power to appoint new Kazi in the area of existing Kazi's jurisdiction as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Kazis Act, 1880 and violative of Articles 14, 21, 19(i)(g)">Articles 14, 21, 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Government Kazi for Prathipadu Assembly constituency of Guntur District to perform marriages in Muslim community as per Kazis Act, 1880 vide G.O. Rt. No. 166 dated 12.06.2018 by the 1st respondent for a period of three years. Prathipadu Assembly constituency was formed with five Mandals in 2009 viz., Guntur Rural Mandal, Kakumanu, Prathipadu, Pedanandipadu and Vatticheukuru. The said five Mandals are allotted to the petitioner to perform marriages in Muslim community as per the provisions of Kazis Act, 1880 and ever since, he has been performing the duties without any complaint. Now, the 1st respondent through the impugned GO appointed the 2nd respondent as Government Kazi for a period of three years for Prathipadu and Kakumanu Mandals, which is being questioned in this writ petition as illegal and arbitrary.
3. Sri Jayanti S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned GO is came to be passed contrary to the provisions of Section 2 of Kazis Act, 1880 whereunder the 1st respondent has to enquire into the matter whether there is any requirement of appointing one more Kazi in the local area and without any representation from the local Muslims requiring appointment of another Kazi to the area and without notice to the petitioner-existing Kazi, taking away some area from the petitioner's jurisdiction is illegal and arbitrary.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the 1st respondent while reiterating the averments of the counter would contend that the 1st respondent Government after carefully examining the proposal of the Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur has appointed the 3rd respondent as Government Kazi for Prathipadu and Kakumanu Mandals, Guntur District for a period of three years for performing marriages of Muslim community only and rest of Prathipadu constituency remains with Sri Shaik Mabu Subhani - petitioner herein as per Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880. Section 2 of Kazis Act, 1880 deals with power to appoint Kazis for any local area stating that wherever it appears to the State Government that any considerable number of the Muhammadans reside in any local area desire that one or more Kazis should be appointed for such local area, the State Government that may, if it think fit after consulting the Principal Muhammandan residents of such local area select one or more fit persons and appoint him or them to be Kazis for such local area. The impugned GO demonstrates that the Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur has submitted a proposal for appointment of the 2nd respondent as Kazi for a period of three years for performing marriages of Muslim community in Prathipadu and Kakumanu Mandals and retaining the other parts of Prathipadu constituency to the petitioner and the same cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. The appointment of the 2nd respondent as Kazi is made after consulting the Principal Muhammadans and residents of Prathipadu constituency in addition to the existing Kazi with a jurisdiction of the Prathipadu and Kakumanu Mandals as per Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880.
5. The petitioner was appointed as Government Kazi for Prathipadu and Kakumanu Mandals, Guntur District vide G.O. Rt. No. 166 dated 12.6.2018. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, it is apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880, which reads thus:
"Power to appoint Ka'zi's for any local area:
Wherever it appears to the State Government that any considerable number of the Muhammadans resident in any local area desire that one or more Ka'zi's should be appointed for such local area, the State Government may, if it thinks fit, after consulting the principal Muhammadan residents of such local area, select one or more fit persons and appoint him or them to be Ka'zi's for such local area.
If any question arises whether any person has been rightly appointed Ka'zi' under this section, the decision thereof by the State Government shall be conclusive.
The State Government may, if it thinks fit, suspend or remove any Ka'zi' appointed under this section who is guilty of any misconduct in the execution of his office, or who is for a continuous period of six months absent from the local area for which he is appointed, or leaves such local area for the purpose of residing elsewhere, or is declared an insolvent, or desires to be discharged from the office, or who refuses or becomes in the opinion of the State Government unfit, or personally incapable, to discharge the duties of the office."
A reading of the above provision clearly states that the State Government has got power to appoint one or more Kazi for such local area, if it thinks fit after consulting the Principal Muhammadan residents of such local area to select one or more fit persons and appoint him or them to be Kazis for such local area. The 2nd respondent was appointed as Kazi duly demarcating the local area Prathipadu and Kakumanu Mandals of Guntur District in due consultation with Principal Muhammadan of the local area. When the proposal is sent by the District Collector for appointment of the 2nd respondent as Government Kazi, the 1st respondent Government appointed the 2nd respondent as Government Kazi vide G.O. Rt. No. 16612.06.2018. Hence, the contra contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without any notice or demarcating a separate local area and overlapping the area of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent was appointed as Government Kazi is unsustainable as the Government has got every power or authority as per the provisions of Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 to appoint one or more Kazi for such local area in consultation with the Principal Muhammadan of such local area, select one or more fit person and appoint him to be Kazi of such local area, without demarcating any specific area between Kazis appointed by the Government. This Court while considering the similar issue in the case of Dr. Mohammad Khaleel Ahmed Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, in W.P. No. 445 & 14913 of 2020 held that no notice is required to be issued to the existing Kazi before appointing another Kazi, no educational qualification is prescribed to be appointed as Kazi under the rules and it prescribes only in consultation with the principal Muhammadans of the local area Kazi could be appointed and no specific area for operation needs to be fixed. Muhammadans of the local area could have choice of getting married with any of the Kazi on whom they have faith and confidence. Hence, contra contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are untenable and unsustainable.
6. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
