The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.11893 of 2010 Date: 27.10.2011 Between: Syed Abdul Khadir Chistty ..... Petitioner AND The Principal Secretary to Government Minority Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.M.Subhani Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.3: ----- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside G.O.Ms.No.142, Minorities Welfare (WAKF-I) Department, dated 13-05-2010 (for short ‘GO’), appointing respondent No.3 as Government Kazi to Wynchipet and Islampet localities of Vijayawada, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Kazis Act, 1880 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner was appointed as Kazi for Vijayawada City in Krishna District, vide G.O.Ms.No.12 Minorities Welfare (Wakf-I) Department, dated 16-03-2005, for performing the marriages of Qazzath. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he is looking after the Wynchipet and Islampet localities of Vijayawada city by performing the marriages. By the impugned GO, respondent No.1 has appointed respondent No.3 as Kazi for the very same localities for performing marriages among the Muslim community. Feeling aggrieved by the said GO, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, while conceding that respondent No.1 has power and authority to appoint more than one Kazi for any local area, however, stated that, while appointing respondent No.3, respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 2 of the Act. The learned Counsel further stated that, before making appointment, the authorities concerned should consult the principal Mohammedan residents of such local area, for which the appointment is sought to be made, and that the material on record does not disclose that such consultations have been made. The learned Counsel further pointed out that letter dated -10-2008, addressed by respondent No.2- District Collector, Krishna District, to respondent No.1- Principal Secretary to Government, Minorities Welfare Department, would show that the former was influenced by the recommendatory letters of the Mayor, the local MP and the local MLA and therefore, the appointment of respondent No.3 is vitiated by extraneous considerations. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed separate counter- affidavits. In the counter-affidavit, filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that the following Principal Mohammedans of Wynchipet and Islampet localities of Vijayawada city were consulted by him: “1. Secretary, Masjid-E-Babul Uloom, House No.8-12-6, ade Sahib Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada. 2. General Secretary, Shahi Masjid, Omar Ali Whah Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada. 3. President, Lions Club of Vijayawada Green City, H.No.27-25-18, 2nd Floor, Kaspavari Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada. 4. Proprietor, S.R.Steels, D.No.12-13-156, Meera Building, Islampet, Vijayawada. 5. Sri S.A.K.Jeelani Advocate, Wynchipet, Vijayawada. 6. Proprietor, Masood Vermicelli Industries, H.No.8- 7-73, Wynchipet, Vijayawada.” The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri V.Subrahmanyam, learned Counsel for respondent No.3, have advanced their submissions and sought to support the impugned GO. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties with reference to the material on record. As rightly conceded by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is no restriction on the power of respondent No.1, under the Act, to appoint more than one Kazi for the same locality. He has rightly submitted that the condition precedent for such appointment is that the Principal Mohammedan residents shall be consulted. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the persons referred to in the counter- affidavit of respondent No.1 are not the Principal Mohammedan residents of the locality, for which respondent No.3 is appointed. Even if the local public representatives such as Mayor, MP and MLA have made their recommendations, that by itself would not vitiate the proceedings appointing respondent No.3 unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are guided by extraneous considerations. On the pleadings of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the material filed in support thereof, I am of the opinion that the sine qua non for appointment of respondent No.3 viz., consultation with the Principal Mohammedan residents is satisfied and therefore, I do not find any illegality, arbitrariness or impropriety on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in appointing respondent No.3 as Kazi for the same locality in which the petitioner is also functioning. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.15007 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 27th October, 2011 LUR