APHC010339682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 16963/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK HUSSAIN, S/O IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT KHAZI, R/OD.NO.7A-10-10, PENUGONDA SRIRAMULU STREET, NEAR ZEENATH PRESS, MAIN BAZAR, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT, A.P- 534001. ...PETITIONER A N D 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY MINORITIES WELFARE DEPT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT, A.P. 3. THE DISTRICT MINORITY WELFARE OFFICER, ELURU DISTRICT, A.P. 4. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAKF BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO), 4TH FLOOR, IMDADGHAR BUILDING, KALESWARA RAO MARKET, TARAPET, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT, PIN - 520001. 5. SHAMS TABREZ, S/O. ABDUL KHADAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O 5-147/12/11, BD COLONY, TANGELLAMUDI, NETHAJI NAGAR, ELURU DISTRICT, A.P -534005. 6. MOHAMMAD ABDUL WAHID, S/O MUBASHARUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KROVVIDI, NIDAMARRU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, or orders or a direction, SRK, J W.P.No.16963 of 2025 2 more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in appointing the 5th and 6th respondents as government khazi for of Eluru, Jangareddygudem and Kovvuru Divisions of West Godavari District respectively. Vide G.O.Ms. Nos. 58 and 59 dt. 03.07.2025, Minority Welfare (IDM-I) Department, without there being any requirement, new Khazi in the area of existing Khazi's jurisdiction as illegal, arbitrary against all cannons of fair play and natural justice and contrary to provisions of khazis act 1880 and offence article 14, 21 19(i)(g) of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned G.O.Ms. Nos. 58 and 59 dt.03.07.2025, Minority Welfare (IDM-I) Department IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the G.O.Ms. Nos. 58 & 59 dt. 03.07.2025 Minority Welfare (IDM-I) Department issued by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MASALEGAR HIDAYATHULLA 2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 3. MD AMEEN 4. SHAIK KHAJA BASHA The Court made the following: SRK, J W.P.No.16963 of 2025 3 O R D E R The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.1 in appointing 5th and 6th respondents as Government Kazis for Eluru, Jangareddygudem and Kovvuru Divisions of West Godavari District, respectively vide G.O.Ms.Nos.58 & 59, Minorities Welfare (IDM-I) Department, dated 03.07.2025, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, set aside the said G.Os. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for respondents 1 to 3; Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned counsel for respondent No.4; Sri Masalegar Hidayathulla, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 and Sri Md.Ameen, learned counsel for Respondent No.6. Perused the material on record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Government Kazi for Eluru of West Godavari District in the existing vacancy, vide G.O.Ms.No.89, Minorities Welfare (WAKF-I) Department, dated 09.06.1998; that later vide G.O.Ms.No.125, Minorities Welfare (WAKF-I) Department, dated 16.11.2012, the jurisdiction of petitioner was extended to Jangareddygudem and Kovvuru Divisions of West Godavari District by the Minorities Welfare (WAKF-I) Department, Andhra Pradesh. SRK, J W.P.No.16963 of 2025 4 (b) It is the further case of the petitioner that several representations were made by the petitioner to 1st respondent requesting not to appoint any additional Kazi in his jurisdiction. However, vide G.O.Ms.Nos.58 & 59, Minorities Welfare (IDM-I) Department, dated 03.07.2025, 1st respondent appointed respondent Nos.5 and 6 as Government Kazis for Eluru-II Town and Unguturu Constituency of Eluru District, in addition to the existing Kazi, for a period of 10 (ten) years. (c) It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.5 and 6 cannot be appointed as Government Kazis within the jurisdiction of the petitioner, as per the Kazis Act, 1880, and the petitioner can appoint Nayab Kazis within his jurisdiction. It is his case that before appointing another Kazi, request from Muhammadan residents of the local area is essential, and one Kazi is sufficient to perform marriages in Muslim community and appointment of another Kazi is not required. It is his case that once a Kazi is appointed in a particular area, the Government has no power or jurisdiction to change the area of operation of already existing Kazi’s jurisdiction and to appoint new Kazi by deleting some extent of area of existing Kazi’s jurisdiction. Hence, the Writ Petition. SRK, J W.P.No.16963 of 2025 5 4. Respondent No.1-Minorities Welfare Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi filed counter affidavit denying the material averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and contending inter alia that as per Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880, the Government is empowered to appoint one or more Kazis in a local area, if the Principal Mohammadan residents of such local area represent the Government for appointment of additional Kazis and accordingly, on 28.05.2025, 2nd respondent-District Collector, Eluru submitted proposals to the Government recommending the names of 5th and 6th respondents to appoint them as Government Kazis in addition to the existing Kazi; that the Muslim population has increased in Eluru and Unguturu Assembly constituencies and there is every need for appointing Kazis in addition to the existing Kazi; that pursuant to the application made by 5th and 6th respondents, 2nd respondent forwarded the said applications to 3rd respondent, who forwarded the same to the Tahsildar concerned, calling for report, and requested antecedents through the Superintendent of Police, concerned, and the said authorities, upon enquiry, reported that 5th and 6th respondents got all essential qualification for appointment as Kazis. It is further stated that considering the Muslim population in Eluru and Unguturu Assembly constituencies, there is huge SRK, J W.P.No.16963 of 2025 6 requirement for appointment of another Kazi in those places, and the names of 5th and 6th respondents were recommended for appointment as Kazis. It is further stated that by virtue of Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 (Act No.12 of 1880), the Government has power to appoint one or more Khazis in the same jurisdiction, and there is no provision in the said Act restricting the Government to appoint only one Kazi for the local area. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed counter affidavits denying the material averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, reiterating same averments in the counter affidavit of respondent No.1 and contending inter alia that, if there is any requirement, the Government has power to appoint one or more Kazis in the same jurisdiction, as per Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880; that respondent Nos.5 and 6 possess all essential qualifications for appointment as Kazis and as there is requirement for Eluru II-Town constituency and Unguturu constituency, they made representations, upon which 2nd respondent got conducted enquiry and submitted report to 1st respondent; that there is no infringement of legal right of the petitioner, and hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. SRK, J W.P.No.16963 of 2025 7 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the Kazis Act, 1880, respondent Nos.5 and 6 cannot be appointed as Government Kazis within the jurisdiction of the petitioner, and that one Kazi is sufficient to perform marriages in Muslim community and appointment of another Kazi is not required. It is his contention that once a Kazi is appointed in a particular area, the Government has no power or jurisdiction to change the area of operation of already existing Kazi’s jurisdiction and to appoint new Kazi by deleting some extent of area of existing Kazi’s jurisdiction, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned GOs. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents would contend that as per Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880, the State Government may appoint one or more fit persons as Kazis for a local area, and there is no provision in the said Act restricting the Government to appoint only one Kazi for the local area. It is further contended that considering the Muslim population in Eluru II-Town and Unguturu constituencies, there is huge requirement for appointment of another Kazi, and local Mohammedan residents showed willingness to appoint 5th and 6th respondents as Kazis. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. SRK, J W.P.No.16963 of 2025 8 8. Now, the point that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is whether there is any infringement of legal right of the petitioner, to enable him to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and whether the Writ Petition is maintainable for the relief sought in the present Writ Petition? 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Government Kazi for Eluru of West Godavari District, vide G.O.Ms. No.89, Minority Welfare (WAKF-I) Department, dated 09.06.1998. Further, vide G.O.Ms.No.125, Minorities Welfare (WAKF-I) Department, dated 16.11.2012, 1st respondent extended the jurisdiction of petitioner as Government Kazi to the Jangareddigudem and Kovvuru Divisions in addition to Eluru Division of West Godavari District under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880. It is also not in controversy that vide G.O.Ms.No.9, Minorities Welfare (IDM-I) Department, in case of Kazis, who are appointed for a period of three years and whose tenure is still in force, their tenure was extendable for a period of ten years with effect from their initial date of appointment. 10. From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 were proposed for appointment as Government Kazis, and pursuant to the same, 2nd SRK, J W.P.No.16963 of 2025 9 respondent forwarded the applications of 5th and 6th respondents to 3rd respondent, who forwarded the same to the Tahsildar, concerned, calling for report. Antecedents of 5th and 6th respondents were called for, through the Superintendent of Police, Eluru. The said authorities, upon enquiry, gave reports. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.2-District Collector, Chittoor District, vide Letters dated 08.01.2025 and 29.05.2025, requested respondent No.1 to appoint respondent Nos.5 and 6 as Government Kazi for Eluru II-Town, and Unguturu Constituencies, respectively. Accordingly, after careful examination of the proposals of 2nd respondent-District Collector, 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.Nos.58 and 59, Minorities Welfare (IDM-I) Department, dated 03.07.2025, appointing 5th respondent as Government Kazi for Eluru-II Town in addition to the existing Kazi and 6th respondent as Government Kazi for Unguturu constituency, Eluru District in addition to the existing Kazi. 11. The petitioner challenges the validity and legal sustainability of action of respondent No.1, vide G.O.Ms.Nos.58 and 59, Minorities Welfare (IDM-I) Department, dated 03.07.2025, appointing respondent Nos.5 and 6 as Government Kazis for Eluru- II Town and Unguturu constituency, Eluru District, respectively. SRK, J W.P.No.16963 of 2025 10 12. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the Government is not empowered to appoint another Government Kazi within the jurisdiction of the petitioner. According to him, one Kazi is sufficient to perform marriages in Muslim community and appointment of another Kazi is not required. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is working as a Kazi only for Eluru and his jurisdiction was extended to Jangareddygudem and Kovvuru Divisions of West Godavari District, but not for entire Eluru District, and that if there is any requirement, the Government has powers to appoint one or more Kazis in the same jurisdiction, as per Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880. 13. On this aspect, it is pertinent to mention relevant provision of the Kazis Act, 1880. Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 deals with ‘Power to appoint Kazis for any local area’. According to the said provision, wherever it appears to the State Government that any considerable number of the Muhammadans resident in any local area, desire that one or more Kazis 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 Kazis for such local area. The said provision makes it clear that if any SRK, J W.P.No.16963 of 2025 11 question arises whether any person has been rightly appointed as Kazi under this Section, the decision thereof by the State Government shall be conclusive. 14. According to the aforesaid Section, there is no stipulation that only one Kazi shall be appointed for a local area. The State Government, if it thinks fit, is empowered to appoint one or more Kazis for such local area. The only requirement mandated under the said Section is that considerable number of Muhammadans residing in any local area have to desire that one or more Kazis should be appointed for such local area. According to respondent Nos.5 and 6, they possess all essential qualifications for appointment as Kazis, and as there is requirement for another Kazi in Eluru-II Town and Unguturu constituencies, they made representations, upon which 2nd respondent got conducted enquiry and submitted report to 1st respondent. It is their case that during the enquiry in the jurisdiction of Eluru-II Town and Unguturu constituencies, several representations were made to the Tahsildar concerned to appoint respondent Nos.5 and 6 as Government Kazis. Therefore, the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon on a decision in Mohammed Haneef v. Mr. Saifuddin Quadri and SRK, J W.P.No.16963 of 2025 12 another1, wherein a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad dismissed the Writ Appeal on the ground that Section 2 of the Khazis Act, 1880 clearly provides that wherever it appears to the State Government that any considerable number of the Muhammadans resident in any local area desire that one or more Kazis 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 Kazis for such local area, and contended that this exercise, prima facie, was not undertaken by the Government before issuing the impugned Government order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon the aforesaid order, submits that a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad concurs with the finding arrived by the learned Single Judge. 16. This Court perused Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 meticulously. In spite of appointment of a Kazi, it is made clear that depending upon the population in the local area, the Government can appoint any number of Kazis. There is a procedure contemplated to appoint a Kazi under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1 Writ Appeal no.127 of 2016 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, dated 23.02.2016. SRK, J W.P.No.16963 of 2025 13 1880. At the cost of repetition, the provision further contemplates that 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 appoints him or them to be Kazi’s for such local area. The whole discretion has been given to the State Government, whether it may or may not consult the principal Muhammadan of the residents of such local area in appointing a Kazi. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision goes to show that total discretion has been given to the State Government whether to consult the principal Muhammadan or not. When such is the case, it is not necessary for the State Government to consult the local principal Muhammadan. 17. Irrespective of the same, Sri Sk.Subhani, learned counsel appearing for 5th respondent submits that the State Government has consulted the local principal Muhammadan and basing on the opinion furnished by him that it is essential to appoint another Kazi, as there is requirement to meet the demands of the population, the State Government appointed 5th and 6th respondents as Kazis. 18. In view of the facts and circumstances, after following due procedure as contemplated under the Kazis Act, 1880, the SRK, J W.P.No.16963 of 2025 14 Government appointed respondent Nos.5 and 6 as Government Kazis in Eluru-II Town and Unguturu constituency, respectively addition to the existing Kazi. There is no infirmity or infringement of legal or constitutional right of the petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 19. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 7th January, 2026. DNB