Allahabad High Court
Maulana Mohd Riyasat Ali vs State Of Up And 6 Others on 11 February, 2025
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19876-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32882 of 2024 Petitioner :- Maulana Mohd Riyasat Ali Respondent :- State Of Up And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Najakat Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.
2. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WRIT- C No. 24086 of 2019 in respect of same cause which came to be dismissed by coordinate Bench vide following order passed on 23.06.2021 :-
"1. This matter has been heard through video conferencing.
2. We have heard Sri Mahabir Yadav for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 7; and have perused the record.
3. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.6.2019 passed by Principal Secretary (Nyay Anubhag-3) (Appointments), Govt. of U.P., Lucknow rejecting the representation of the petitioner for appointment as a "Kazi" under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 (for short the Act).
4. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are as under: One Janab Sayed Sabir was earlier appointed as Kazi in Agra City. He died in the year 2013. After his death no City Kazi has been appointed by the State. The petitioner, by claiming that he had been performing duty as a Naib City Kazi, applied to the State Government seeking for his appointment as "Kazi". When no decision was taken on the application of the petitioner, a writ petition was filed which was disposed off by requiring the concerned Secretary in the Government to take decision on petitioner's claim. When a decision was not taken, contempt application was filed. Now, by the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Kazi has been rejected.
5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the State Govt., upon consideration of the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, found that there was not considerable number of persons belonging to the Muslim Community of the locality expressing their support for appointment of the petitioner as "Kazi" inasmuch as recommendation for his appointment came from only six persons.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner by inviting our attention to various recommendation letters as also to paragraph 6 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that Janab Sayed Sabir, the erstwhile "City Kazi", had required the petitioner to perform as Naib City Kazi, submitted that rejection of petitioner's claim for appointment as "Kazi" is arbitrary.
7. In reply, the stand of the respondents is that, under Section 2 of the Act, the State Government has complete discretion whether to appoint a person as Kazi or not, after drawing satisfaction that considerable number of Mohammedans residing in any local area desire that one or more Kazis be appointed for such local area. It is therefore the case of the respondents that once a decision has been taken upon finding that the support for appointment of the petitioner is not considerable, such decision is not justiciable.
8. Before we proceed to weigh the rival submissions, it would be useful to have a glimpse at the relevant provisions of the Act.
Sections 2 and 4 of the Act are relevant to understand the true import of its provisions. They are thus extracted below:
"Section 2.-- Power to appoint Kazis 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 Kazis should be appointed for such local area, the State Government may, if it thinks fit, after consulting the principal Mohammedan residents of such local area, select one or more fit persons and appoint him or them to be Kazis for such local area.
If any question arises whether any person has been rightly appointed Kazi 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 Kazi 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."
Section 4.-- Nothing in the Act to confer judicial or administrative powers; or to render the presence of Kazi necessary; or to prevent any one acting as Kazi.-- Nothing herein contained and no appointment made hereunder, shall be deemed--
(a) to confer any judicial or administrative powers on any Kazi or Naib Kazi appointed hereunder; or
(b) to render the presence of a Kazi or Naib Kazi necessary at the celebration of any marriage or the performance of any rite or ceremony; or
(c) to prevent any person discharging any of the functions of a Kazi."
9. A close examination of the provisions of section 2 of the Act would indicate that for appointment of a person as Kazi there are two stages. The first stage is that it must appear to the State Government that a considerable number of the Mohammedans residing in any local area desire that one or more Kazis should be appointed for such local area. Once, the first stage is crossed, the State gets discretion to appoint, if it thinks fit, one or more fit persons, after consultation with the principal Mohammedan residents of such local area. Section 4 of the Act by declaring that no appointment made under the Act could prevent a person from discharging any of the functions of a Kazi clarifies that appointment of a Kazi does not confer any exclusive status or powers.
10. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Katil Sheikh Ummar Saheb V. Khazi Budan Khan Saheb, AIR 1915 Madras 28 upon examination of the provisions of Sections 2 and 4 of the Act held that the object of the Kazis Act was merely to appoint a person whose duty it would be to render certain services to such Mohammedans as may choose to resort to him for certain purposes, and does not confer on him any exclusive right to perform the functions which his office requires him to discharge.
11. Having examined the scheme of the Act and the decision noticed above, we are of the view that the appointment of a person as Kazi does not confer any exclusive right upon that person. It is therefore a mere title, conferment of which rests in the discretion of the State, subject to the provisions of the Act. No one therefore, gets a right to claim appointment as Kazi under the Act. Thus, keeping in mind that denial of appointment does not affect any right of the petitioner, the decision of the State Government rejecting petitioner's claim for appointment as Kazi does not give a cause of action to the petitioner to maintain a writ petition. Had it been a case of taking away the conferred title of Kazi from the petitioner, situation would have been different and he would have had a right to question the same on grounds permissible for judicial review. But here the petitioner was never appointed by the State Government therefore a question of his removal does not arise.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find a good reason to entertain this petition. The petition is dismissed."
3. It transpires that thereafter the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a review application. The review application being Civil Misc. Review Application No. 54 of 2022 has also been rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court on 08.04.2022 vide following order :
"We had dismissed the Writ Petition of the petitioner by a detailed order dated 23.06.2021. Against the order dated 23.06.2021, petitioner filed a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 17282 of 2021 before the Apex Court which was got dismissed as withdrawn by extending a statement that factual inaccuracies have crept in our order and therefore, he may be given liberty to move a Review Application.
Pursuant to the liberty to move a Review Application granted by the Apex Court vide order dated 8.11.2021, this Review Application has been filed seeking a Review of our order dated 23.06.2021 passed in Writ C No. 24086 of 2019.
We have heard Sri Mahabir Yadav for the review applicant.
Despite our pointed query to Sri Mahabir Yadav to point out a factual error, if any, that may have crept in our order dated 23.06.2021, Sri Mahabir Yadav stated that there is no factual error in our order dated 23.06.2021 but he wishes to place certain documents that are there in the Writ Petition.
As it is well settled that review is not a remedy to re-hear the matter and only errors apparent on the face of the record are to be addressed which we find none, we do not find a good reason to entertain this Review Application.
The Review Application is dismissed accordingly."
4. The petitioner again approached the Honb'le Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 15830 of 2022 wherein the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the dismissal of the petition. However, a fresh representation was permitted to be filed along with documents and recommendations. Such representation was to be dealt with as per law.
5. The authorities of the State clearly state that the claim of the petitioner by a passing order has already been rejected on 20.06.2019. This order of the State Government has been affirmed with dismissal of the writ petition. Reasons recorded in the order for rejecting the claim of the petitioner has not been interefered with in the previous round of the writ petition. Merely because a fresh representation on similar lines is made, we do not find any good ground to take a different view from what has been observed earlier by the coordinate Bench.
6. The facts recorded in the order of this Court otherwise are not shown to be incorrect.
7. The petition is dismissed accordingly and is consigned to records.
8. However, the dismissal of this petition will not preclude the respondents from considering the petitioner's claim in accordance with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.12.2022.
Order Date :- 11.2.2025 KS