ORDER
Tirath S. Thakur, J.
1. An order dated 8th of May 1991 issued by the Government in , exercise of its powers under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 appointing the petitioners in those two Writ Petitions as Kazis for the Villages mentioned therein is what has been brought under challenge in these Writ Petitions. The challenge arises in the back ground of the following facts:-
One Masaheba Bi was appointed as a Kazi for an area comprising 58 villages of Manvi Taluk in Raichur District by the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad under the provisions of the Kazis Act. Certain litigation against the appointment made appears to have started culminating in an order dated 18th of August 1987 passed by this Court in Writ Appeals Nos.646 and 1459 of 1983. The said order settled the controversy between the parties based on a compromise arrived at between them, according to which Masaheba Bi was to continue to be the Kazi of Manvi Taluk, whereas Asghar Hussain, petitioner in WP No. 12805/92 was to be her Naib Kazi to carry out the duties assigned to him by the Kazi. It is not disputed that apart from Asghar Hussain, Masaheba Bi also appointed Shafiuddin Khadri Saheb, petitioner in WP No. 21429/92 as Naib Kazi under her. With the death of Masaheba Bi in the year 1988, the position of the Kazi of the area fell vacant. The District Wakf Committee, Raichur, recommended the names of both Asghar Hussain and Shafiuddin Kadri Saheb to the Government for appointment as Kazis of Manvi Taluk, acting whereupon the Government, by its order dated 8th of May 1991 appointed both of them as Kazis in respect of the area comprising the Villages mentioned in the Annexure to the order. Both the appointees are unhappy and have come up against the said order. While petitioner in WP No. 12805/92 contends that the appointment of Moulvi Shafiuddin Khadri was improper and the distribution of the Villages irrational, the latter argues that the former was too old and physically incapacitated by illness to be considered worth an appointment as Kazi. According to him, the Government ought to have made only one appointment and entrusted the entire area in Manvi Taluk to him for being served as a Kazi.
2. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The appointments made under the impugned order are relatable to Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880, which empowers the State Government to appoint one or more Kazis for any local area if it appears to it that a considerable number of Muhammadan residing in any such area desire any such appointment to be made. The appointment has to be made in consultation with the Muhammadan residents of such local area and the correctness of any appointment so made is left to be determined by the Government, whose opinion on the subject is made conclusive. Section 3 of the Act provides for appointment of Naib Kazis and empowers a Kazi appointed under Section 2 to make any such appointment for the discharge of the functions attached to the Office of a Kazi throughout the whole or any portion of the local area for which he is appointed. Section 4 of the Act, however, is the most significant part of the short enactment. It provides that nothing contained in the Act nor any appointment made thereunder shall be deemed to confer any judicial or administrative powers on any Kazi or Naib Kazi appointed thereunder or 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 to prevent any person from discharging, any of the functions of a Kazi. Section 4 at this stage may be extracted:
“Section 4: Nothing in 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 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.”
4. A plain reading of the provision shows that an appointment of a Kazi made under the Act does not either render the presence of any such Kazi or Naib Kazi necessary for the celebration of any marriage or the performance of any ceremony nor does any such appointment prevent any person from discharging any of the functions of a Kazi. That a Kazi so appointed has no judicial or administrative powers is also clear from the provisions of Section 4. it follows that the appointment of the petitioners in these two Writ Petitions as Kazis in respect of the Villages identified in the impugned order does not create any exclusive right or privilege in their favour to perform the functions of a Kazi in the said areas. Section 4(c) specifically provides so. In the circumstances, therefore, the very fact that the appointments in question have been made by reference to the Villages mentioned in the Government Order wouid not prevent either one of the two petitioners from discharging the functions of a Kazi in any one of these Villages even when the said Villages have been assigned to the other. The grievance made by the petitioner in W.P. No. 12805/91 that the allocation of the Villages was unfair or arbitrary, does not, in these circumstances survive for it is open to the said petitioner to perform the functions of a Kazi at any place and in any Village within the Tauk or even outside. The vice versa is also equally true as regards petitioner in W.P. No. 21429/92.
5. That brings me to the grievance made by the petitioner in W.P. No. 21429/92, according to whom the appointment of Asghar Hussain was improper and unsustainable because, the said person was very old and physically disabled from discharging the functions of a Kazi. It was contended that, the recommendations made by the Tahsildar on the basis of an enquiry conducted by the Revenue Inspector as also those made by the members of the District Wakf Committee, Raichur entitled him alone to be appointed as a Kazi. These recommendations, it was urged, were not considered by the Government while making the appointments in question.
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the appointments have been made on the recommendations of the District Wakf Committee, Raichur, who had recommended both the petitioners for the same. While it is true that the recommendations made by the Tahsildar and the members of the Wakf Committee, copies whereof have been placed on record as Annexures-G, H and I to the Writ Petition, recommended the name of Shafiuddin Khadri Saheb only for appointment as a Kazi, there is nothing on record to show that the authorities making the recommendations had in any manner considered Sri Asghar Hussain unsuitable or ineligible for any such appointment. Keeping in view the fact that Asghar Hussain had been working as a Naib Kazi for a considerable period since the order of this Court dated 18th of August 1987 and was duly recommended by the Wakf Board, his appointment cannot be said to be improper or illegal to warrant any interference merely because he is, according to his rival, too old to perform the functions of a Kazi.
7. Mr. Mujeeb, Learned Counsel appearing for Syed Shafiuddin Khadri, however, argued that since Masaheba Bi had removed Sri Asghar Hussain from the Naib Kazisip in terms of an order dated 15th of June 1987, he was disqualified from being appointed as a Kazi. The issue of any such order of removal is disputed by Sri Asghar Hussain. Even assuming that such an order was issued notwithstanding the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 18th of August 1987, yet any such removal could not possibly disqualify him from being appointed as a Kazi. There is nothing in the Act to suggest that a person, who was earlier working as a Naib Kazi, but is removed from the said position at any stage gets disqualified for appointment as a Kazi. The appointment of Asghar Hussain cannot, therefore, be assailed even on that ground.
8. In the result, there is no merit in these Writ Petitions, which are dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, without any orders as to cost.