IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6735 and 6744 of 2002 Between: Mumtaz Yar-Ud-Doula wakf, rep., by its Honorary Secretary, Nawab Mahaboob Alam Kha Hyderabad. … Petitioner AND A.P. State Wakf Tribunal at Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. Krishna L. Gahloti for Sri V. Venkataramana Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri S.M. Subhan SC for Wakf Board This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6735 and 6744 of 2002 COMMON ORDER:- These two writ petitions are ﬁled by the petitioners, who were appointed as kazis for Laskar-E-Ferozi and Maisaram Balda areas, assailing the validity of G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 20.03.2002 issued by the respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 16, 19(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners questioned the validity of G.O.Ms.No.13 by which the Quzaat area was divided into 32 zones mainly on two grounds, namely, that they were not given notices before rearranging the zones and that the areas for which the petitioners were appointed were included in diﬀerent zones leading to the situation where there is a likelihood of the petitioners being left with no identiﬁable area of their own threatening their removal in future. In the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Minorities Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, it is inter alia stated that in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, the kazis were previously appointed, keeping in view the requirements of the Muslim Community, that the population of Muslim community has considerably increased during the last several decades in the twin cities and that the surrounding areas of Ranga Reddy District and that the present strength of the kazis is not suﬃcient to meet the present requirements. It is further stated that there has been a consistent demand from the members of the Muslim community and various organizations for appointment of more kazis in the twin cities, that only seven kazis were functioning in the twin cities with the help of some Niab Kazis under their control in the seven existing zones and that in view of the increase in demand for more number of kazis and as the number of existing kazis is not conducive for proper functioning of Quzaat system in the twin cities, the State Government thought it ﬁt to bifurcate the existing seven zones in an appropriate manner. The District Collectors were asked to make enquiries and submit reports and that after examining the matter by the Government in consultation with the Law Department, it demarcated the Quzaat into 32 zones in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 (for short, ‘the Act’). The answering respondent relied on certain observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 09.06.1989 passed in WP.No.4949 of 1986 and 2416 of 1989. Section 2 of the Act reads as under: “2. Power to appoint Kazis for any local a r e a :- Whenever it appears to the State Government tat an considerable number of the Mohammedans 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 the kazis for such local area. If any question arises whether any person has been rightly appointed kasi 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 ho 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.” Considering the above-reproduced provision, the Division Bench in the abovementioned case observed as under: “It is next contended that the respondents have not been expressly appointed under the Act and, therefore, they are not entitled to function as Qazis and Naib Qazis. They have been discharging their functions all these years without hindrance. Under these circumstances, though there is no express order made, since they have been recognized by the Government as Khazis/Naib Khaziz, it must be construed to be appointment made under Section 2 and Section 3 of the Act.” As noted supra, the respondent has taken the stand that in order to meet the increased demand for more number of kazis with the steep increase in the Muslim population, the Government has decided to increase the number of zones from 7 to 32. As held by the Division Bench, such a power is implicit in the Government in Section 2 of the Act. I do not ﬁnd any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that before exercising the power vested in it by Section 2 of the Act, the State Government is bound to give notice to the petitioners. The act of increasing the number of zones is purely administrative in nature undertaken in exercise of a statutory power vested in the Government. The statute does not envisage prior notice to the existing kazis for changing the local areas. While the petitioners can claim right in their continuing as kazis subject to the provisions of the Act, they cannot claim any vested right insofar as the areas for which they are appointed. Depending upon the administrative exigencies, it is open to the State Government to increase or reduce the areas as the case may be. In this view of the matter, the ﬁrst contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to a notice before increasing the number of zones, is rejected. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I ﬁnd some force therein. A perusal of the appointment orders of the petitioners show that diﬀerent localities are entrusted to them to perform their duties as kazis. In the impugned G.O., these areas are included in diﬀerent Quzaat areas. This will be likely to give rise to class of interests among the kazis and create a confusion as to which kazi has to perform his function in which area. For the reasons best known to the respondent while increasing the number of Quzaat areas to 32, it has not entrusted the zones to the existing kazis. If the Government had not appointed all the 32 kazis, it is expected to make at least ad hoc arrangements to entrust each Quzaat area to the existing kazis and make a ﬁnal order after completion of the appointments for all the 32 zones. The respondent is silent in his counter affidavit in this regard. For the abovementioned reasons, while rejecting the challenge to the validity of G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 20.03.2002, the writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to make representations to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. On such representations being made, the respondent shall consider and entrust to the petitioners the appropriate zones, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, WPMP.Nos.8445 and 8455 of 2002 in WP.Nos.6735 and 6744 of 2002 respectively ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.10.2008 ES