Telangana High Court
WP/33583/2012 of Syed Khaja Moinuddin Chishty, S/o. Janab Fazluddin Chishty Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Principal on 31 December 2013
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33583 of 2012 Date:31.12.2013 Between: Syed Khaja Moinuddin Chishty, S/o Janab Fazluddin Chishty ..... Petitioner And: The Govt of AP, reptd by the Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, Hyderabad and two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.33583 of 2012
Date:31.12.2013
Between:Syed Khaja Moinuddin Chishty,S/o Janab Fazluddin Chishty
..... Petitioner
And:
The Govt of AP, reptd by the PrincipalSecretary, Minority Welfare Department, Hyderabadand two others.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vladimeer Khatoon Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Minority WelfareCounsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Shafath Ahmed KhanCounsel for Respondent No.3: Sri A.M.Qureshi The Court made the following:ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to setaside G.O.Ms.No.84, Minorities Welfare (Wakf-I)Department, dated 04.09.2012.
The petitioner was appointed as Kazi underG.O.Ms.No.20, Minority Welfare (Wakf-I) Department,03.06.2006, for Tenali Division, Guntur District. Onrespondent No.3 approaching respondent No.1, the latterhas issued the impugned G.O., whereunder he has beenappointed as Government Kazi for Ponnur AssemblyConstituency, Guntur District.
The main ground on which the petitioner assailedthe appointment of respondent No.3 is that as he hasalready been functioning as Kazi for the entire Revenue Division, which includes Ponnur Assembly Constituency,the appointment of respondent No.3 is illegal. I do not findany merit in the plea of the petitioner.
Under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880, wherever itappears to the State Government that considerablenumber of the Mahommedans residing in any local areadesires that one or more Kazis should be appointed forsuch local area, the State Government may afterconsulting the principal Mahommedan residents of suchlocal area, select one or more fit persons and appoint himor them to be Kazis for such local area.
In Writ Appeal No.1319 of 2009, a Division Benchof this Court, of which I am a party, by order, dated16.11.2009, held that there is no bar on the StateGovernment to appoint more than one Kazi for the samelocal area. Therefore, I do not find any reason toinvalidate the impugned G.O., more so, when respondentNo.3 has been appointed for a specified area i.e., PonnurAssembly Constituency area, the petitioner cannot haveany grievance.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petitionfails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition,WPMP.No.4476 of 2012 is dismissed as infructuous.
____________________________
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY31[st] December, 2013DR