26 10.07.2026 Court. No. 25 D.Hira WPA 1670 of 2026 Md. Nasiruddin Baidya Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sourav Kumar Dutta, Mr. Subham Dutta. … for the petitioner Mr. Samim Ahammed, Md. Nasirul Haque, Ms. Sabnam Mostari. … for the private respondent Ms. Sudipa Banerjee. … for the State 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the appointment of the private respondent as MMR dated 15th December, 2025 within Dholahat Police Station comprising the territorial limits over parts of Mathurapur I and Patharpratima C.D. Block of Dholahat P.S. area in the district of South 24 parganas. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as MMR for Kakdwip P.S. by a notification dated 12th September, 2007. In the year 2009, as per the request of the petitioner, the petitioner was transferred to Dholahat P.S. from Kakdwip P.S.. 3. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is working as MMR in the Dholahat P.S. but in the said area, the respondent authorities appointed the 2 private respondent also as MMR in violation of Section 3 of the Bengal Mohammadan Marriages and Divorces Registration Act, 1876 and Rule 3(a) and 3(b) of the Judicial Department (Registration) Notification dated 14th August, 1929. 4. He submits that as per Section 3 proviso no more than two persons shall be licensed to exercise the said function within the same limits, and provided further that, when two persons are so licensed to act within the same limits, the one shall be a member of the Sunni and the other of the Shia. But in the present case, the petitioner is already working in the Dholahat P.S. as Sunni and the private respondent has also been appointed in the same police jurisdiction who is also a Sunni. 5. By referring the Rule 3(a) submits that Rule 3 provides that selection of the candidates of MMR for the permanent post and 3(b) is for the temporary appointment but the authorities have not followed the procedure while appointing the private respondent as MMR. 6. He further submits that the petitioner is appointed as permanent MMR under the jurisdiction of Dholahat Police Station, thus, there is no necessity to appoint private respondent in the same area in violation of provision of Section 3 and Rule 3(a) and 3(b). 3 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent submits that the petitioner was appointed in Dholahat P.S. Subsequently, taking into consideration of high Muslim population density in Dholahat P.S. area, the Government has decided to establish two MMR office within Dholahat P.S. for smooth functioning of MMR office for the convenience of General public. Accordingly, Dholahat P.S. area divided into two parts, one part is Kakdwip and Kulpi wherein the petitioner was appointed and another is Mathurapur I and Patharpratima C.D. Block of Dholahat P.S. After dividing the Dholahat P.S. in two parts the petitioner has been given work of MMR at Kakdwip P.S. to Kulpi of Dholahat P.S. and the private respondent was appointed in the Mathurapur I and Patharpratima C.D. Block of Dholahat P.S. 8. He submits that Section 3 proviso provided that no more than two persons shall be licensed to exercise the said function within the same limits and accordingly the private respondent was not appointed under the limit where the petitioner was working. The working area of the both the petitioner and the private respondent are different. 9. He further submits that Rule 3(a) provides that on the occurrence of a vacancy in the post of a MMR or on the creation of a new office in any district 4 other than the district of Calcutta, the Registrar shall at once make a temporary appointment to carry on the work of the office, intimate the vacancy to the Inspector-General of Registration and invite applications for the permanent post. 10. He submits that the private respondent is appointed on temporary basis till the permanent post is filled up in the said area. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the State has placed a report and has adopted the submission made by the learned counsel for the private respondent and submits that the respondent authorities have followed the provision of the Act and Rule while appointing the private respondent on temporary basis. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and materials on record. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed in the Kakdwip P.S. and as per the request of the petitioner, was transferred to Dholahat P.S. from Kakdwip P.S. 14. The respondents find that high Muslim population density in the Dholahat P.S. and accordingly the authorities have taken a decision that the Dholahat P.S. is to be divided in four parts. The authorities have divided the Dholahat P.S. in four parts that is, Kakdwip and Kulpi and Mathurapur I and Patharpratima portion. Accordingly, the petitioner 5 has been given a work of MMR in the Kakdwip and Kulpi and the private respondent has been given work in Mathurapur I and Patharpratima portion. 15. Section 3 of the Act of 1876 reads as follows:- “3. It shall be lawful for the State Government to grant a license to any person, being a Muhammadan, authorizing him to register Muhammadan marriages and divorces which have been effected within certain specified limits, on application being made to him for such registration; and in like manner it shall be lawful for the said State Government to revoke or suspend such license. Provided that no more than two persons shall be licensed to exercise the said function within the same limits; and provided further that, when two persons are so licensed to act within the same limits, the one shall be a member of the Sunni, and the other of the Shia, sect.” 16. The proviso of the said Act says that no more than two persons shall be licensed to exercise the said function within the same limit. 17. In the present case, though the Dholahat P.S. is the one but taking the consideration of the high population density of the Muslim in Dholahat P.S., the authorities have divided the said P.S. in two parts and accordingly, the petitioner has been 6 given the work of MMR in one part and the private respondent has been given work in another part. 18. Considering the same, this Court finds that the authorities have not violated the provision of Section 3 of the Act of 1876 as alleged by the petitioner. As regards the violation of Rule 3(a) and 3(b) while appointing the private respondent, Rule 3(a) and 3(b) reads as follows:- “(a) PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR MUHAMMADAN REGISTRARSHIP IN DISTRICTS OTHER THAN CALCUTTA. - On the occurrence of a vacancy in the post of a Muhammadan Registrar or on the creation of a new office in any district other than the district of Calcutta, the Registrar shall at once make a temporary appointment to carry on the work of the office, intimate the vacancy to the Inspector-General of Registration and invite applications for the permanent post. Applications may also be received by Inspector-General of Registration but on receipt he should forward them to the Registrar of the district concerned. The Registrar will, then send to the Inspector- General of Registration all the applications for the post after recommending in order of preference the best four of the applications and merely noting on the others "not recommended". On receipt of the applications the Inspector-General of Registration will ask the Permanent Committee to consider them along with his remarks and the remarks of the 7 Registrar, as the case may be, and submit their recommendations to him putting forward three names for each vacancy in order of preference. He will then communicate the recommendations to Government who may select one out of these, three names or, for any special reason, may select any other from the rest of the candidates. (b) PROCEDURE IN MAKING TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT.- In making temporary appointments the Permanent Committee need not be consulted. The District Registrar shall nominate a suitable person for each vacancy. The District Registrar's nomination shall be submitted to Government by the Inspector- General of Registration who, if he disapproves of the District Registrar's. nominee, may recommend the appointment of any other candidate. A temporary license shall then be issued to the candidate approved by the local Government.” 19. The respondents have appointed the private respondent on temporary basis. Rule 3(a) provides that on the occurrence of a vacancy in the post of a Muhammadan Registrar or on the creation of a new office in any district other than the district of Calcutta, the Registrar shall at once make a temporary appointment to carry on the work of the office. 20. In the present case, it is found that though initially the total work of Dholahat P.S. was given to the 8 petitioner as a MMR. Subsequently, by taking into consideration in the high density population of the Muslim in the said area, the authorities have divided the said Dholahat P.S. in two parts. The petitioner has been given work of MMR in one part and the private respondent has been given work of another part. The private respondent is appointed on temporary basis by following the procedure of Rule 3(a) first part. The private respondent is not appointed in the same area wherein the petitioner is appointed. The place of work of both are different and the petitioner is appointed on temporary basis, thus there is no violation of Rule 3(a). 21. Considering the above, this Court finds that there is no illegality in appointing of the private respondent in the part of the Dholahat P.S. 22. Accordingly, this Court did not find any merit in the present application. 23. W.P.A. No. 1670 of 2026 is dismissed. 24. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)