IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3543 of 2009 Between: Syed Nazarulla Saheb, S/o. Syed Jamalulla, Kadapa, R/o. 6/219, R.V. Nagar, Kadapa. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh,. Rep by its Principal Secretary & Ex-Officio Commissioner, Minorities Welfare Department, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly 1st respondent in not appointing the petitioner as additional khazi for Kadapa town in pursuance of the application of the petitioner dated 08-04-2005 as recommended by the 1st respondent in his Rc.No.Khazis/Spl/B/2005 dated 02-05-2006 as per Section 2 of the Khazis Act 1880 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, unsustainable dilatory, and against statutory provisions and consequently direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as additional khazi of Kadapa town in Kadapa District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 3543 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner submitted an application to the 2nd Respondent on 8- 4-2005 seeking appointment as Additional ‘khazi’ for Kadapa town. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent submitted a detail report to the 1st respondent vide Rc.No.Khazis/Spl/B/2005, dated 2-5-2006. There being no action on the part of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare takes notice on behalf of the Respondents No.1 and 2. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that the report sent by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent on his application with regard to the appointment of additional khazi for Kadapa town is not being considered. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the report of the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No. Khazis/Spl/B/2005, dated 2-5-2006 with regard to appointment of petitioner as Additional Khazi of Kadapa town and pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 24th February, 2009. Note: C.C. in a week B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 3543 OF 2009 24th February, 2009.