# Maulana Mohd. Riyasat Ali v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 1727
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-06-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 24086 of 2019
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Anil Kumar Ojha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maulana-mohd-riyasat-ali-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47614
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Kazis Act,1880-Sections 2,4Appointment of Kazi-Claim of petitioner
for appointment as City Kazi has been
rejected-Even there was not considerable
number of persons belonging to Muslim
Community of locality expressing their
support for appointment of the petitioner
as "Kazi"-Appointment of a person as Kazi
does no confer any exclusive right upon
that person-It is a mere title, conferment
of which rests in the discretion of StateHence, no interference requires.(Para 1 to
12)

B. A close examination of the provisions of
section 2 of the Act would indicate that for
appointment of a person as Kazi there are
two stages. The first stage is that it must
appear to the State Government that a
considerable
number
of
the
Mohammedans residing in any local area
desire that one or more Kazis should be
appointed for such local area. Once, the
first stage is crossed, the State gets
discretion to appoint, if it thinks fit, one or
more fit persons, after consultation with
the principal Mohammedan residents of
such local area. Section 4 of the Act by
declaring that no appointment made
under the Act could prevent a person from
discharging any of the functions of a Kazi
clarifies that appointment of a Kazi does
not
confer
any
exclusive
status
or
powers.(Para 9)
The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Katil Sheikh Ummar Saheb Vs Khazi Budan Khan
Saheb (1915) AIR Madras 28

## Text

9 All. Maulana Mohd. Riyasat Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1727
there is no illegality in the impugned
notification.

13. The petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1727
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, J.

Writ C No. 24086 of 2019

Maulana Mohd. Riyasat Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mahabir Yadav, Sri Ram Awtar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Kazis Act,1880-Sections 2,4Appointment of Kazi-Claim of petitioner
for appointment as City Kazi has been
rejected-Even there was not considerable
number of persons belonging to Muslim
Community of locality expressing their
support for appointment of the petitioner
as "Kazi"-Appointment of a person as Kazi
does no confer any exclusive right upon
that person-It is a mere title, conferment
of which rests in the discretion of StateHence, no interference requires.(Para 1 to
12)

B. A close examination of the provisions of
section 2 of the Act would indicate that for
appointment of a person as Kazi there are
two stages. The first stage is that it must
appear to the State Government that a
considerable
number
of
the
Mohammedans residing in any local area
desire that one or more Kazis should be
appointed for such local area. Once, the
first stage is crossed, the State gets
discretion to appoint, if it thinks fit, one or
more fit persons, after consultation with
the principal Mohammedan residents of
such local area. Section 4 of the Act by
declaring that no appointment made
under the Act could prevent a person from
discharging any of the functions of a Kazi
clarifies that appointment of a Kazi does
not
confer
any
exclusive
status
or
powers.(Para 9)
The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Katil Sheikh Ummar Saheb Vs Khazi Budan Khan
Saheb (1915) AIR Madras 28

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.
&
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha, J.)

1. This matter has been heard through
video conferencing.

2. We have heard Sri Mahabir Yadav
for the petitioner; the learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents 1 to 7; and
have perused the record.

3. The petitioner seeks quashing of
the order dated 20.6.2019 passed by
Principal Secretary (Nyay Anubhag-3)
(Appointments), Govt. of U.P., Lucknow
rejecting the representation of the petitioner
for appointment as a "Kazi" under Section
2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 (for short the Act).

4. Briefly stated the facts giving rise
to this petition are as under: One Janab
Sayed Sabir was earlier appointed as Kazi
in Agra City. He died in the year 2013.
After his death no City Kazi has been
appointed by the State. The petitioner, by
claiming that he had been performing duty
as a Naib City Kazi, applied to the State
1728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government seeking for his appointment as
"Kazi". When no decision was taken on the
application of the petitioner, a writ petition
was filed which was disposed off by
requiring the concerned Secretary in the
Government to take decision on petitioner's
claim. When a decision was not taken,
contempt application was filed. Now, by
the impugned order, the claim of the
petitioner for appointment as Kazi has been
rejected.

5. A perusal of the impugned order
reveals
that
the
State
Govt.,
upon
consideration of the provisions of Section 2
of the Act, found that there was not
considerable number of persons belonging
to the Muslim Community of the locality
expressing their support for appointment of
the petitioner as "Kazi" inasmuch as
recommendation for his appointment came
from only six persons.

6. The learned counsel for the
petitioner by inviting our attention to
various recommendation letters as also to
paragraph 6 of the writ petition wherein it
is stated that Janab Sayed Sabir, the
erstwhile "City Kazi", had required the
petitioner to perform as Naib City Kazi,
submitted that rejection of petitioner's
claim for appointment as "Kazi" is
arbitrary.

7. In reply, the stand of the
respondents is that, under Section 2 of the
Act, the State Government has complete
discretion whether to appoint a person as
Kazi or not, after drawing satisfaction that
considerable number of Mohammedans
residing in any local area desire that one or
more Kazis be appointed for such local
area. It is therefore the case of the
respondents that once a decision has been
taken upon finding that the support for
appointment of the petitioner is not
considerable,
such
decision
is
not
justiciable.

8. Before we proceed to weigh the
rival submissions, it would be useful to
have a glimpse at the relevant provisions of
the Act. Sections 2 and 4 of the Act are
relevant to understand the true import of its
provisions. They are thus extracted below:

"Section 2.-- Power to appoint
Kazis for any local area.-- Wherever it
appears to the State Government that any
considerable number of the Muhammadans
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 be Kazis for such local
area.

If any question arises whether
any person has been rightly appointed Kazi
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 who 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."

Section 4.-- Nothing in the Act to
confer judicial or administrative powers;
or to render the presence of Kazi
9 All. Principal Commissioner Cgst & Central Excise Lucknow & Anr. Vs. M/s Bushrah Export
 House Two Star Lko & Anr.
1729
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 Kazi 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."

9. A close examination of the provisions
of section 2 of the Act would indicate that for
appointment of a person as Kazi there are two
stages. The first stage is that it must appear to
the State Government that a considerable
number of the Mohammedans residing in any
local area desire that one or more Kazis should
be appointed for such local area. Once, the first
stage is crossed, the State gets discretion to
appoint, if it thinks fit, one or more fit persons,
after
consultation
with
the
principal
Mohammedan residents of such local area.
Section 4 of the Act by declaring that no
appointment made under the Act could prevent
a person from discharging any of the functions
of a Kazi clarifies that appointment of a Kazi
does not confer any exclusive status or powers.

10. A Division Bench of the Madras
High Court in Katil Sheikh Ummar Saheb
V. Khazi Budan Khan Saheb, AIR 1915
Madras 28 upon examination of the
provisions of Sections 2 and 4 of the Act held
that the object of the Kazis Act was merely to
appoint a person whose duty it would be to
render certain services to such Mohammedans
as may choose to resort to him for certain
purposes, and does not confer on him any
exclusive right to perform the functions which
his office requires him to discharge.

11. Having examined the scheme of the
Act and the decision noticed above, we are of
the view that the appointment of a person as
Kazi does not confer any exclusive right upon
that person. It is therefore a mere title,
conferment of which rests in the discretion of
the State, subject to the provisions of the Act.
No one therefore, gets a right to claim
appointment as Kazi under the Act. Thus,
keeping in mind that denial of appointment
does not affect any right of the petitioner, the
decision of the State Government rejecting
petitioner's claim for appointment as Kazi does
not give a cause of action to the petitioner to
maintain a writ petition. Had it been a case of
taking away the conferred title of Kazi from
the petitioner, situation would have been
different and he would have had a right to
question the same on grounds permissible for
judicial review. But here the petitioner was
never appointed by the State Government
therefore a question of his removal does not
arise.

12. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not
find a good reason to entertain this petition.
The petition is dismissed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1729
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 05.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 29052 of 2021

Principal Commissioner Cgst & Central
Excise Lucknow & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
M/S Bushrah Export House Two Star Lko
& Anr. ...Respondents