Allahabad High Court
Maulana Mohd.Riyasat Ali vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 23 June, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 1286
Bench: Manoj Misra, Anil Kumar Ojha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24086 of 2019 Petitioner :- Maulana Mohd.Riyasat Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahabir Yadav,Ram Awtar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., or leaves such local area Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
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.
Order Date :- 23.6.2021 CS