Mohammed Zaheeruddin S/o. Mohammed Rukunuddin v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the 1tj respondent contained in G.O.Rt.No.65, dated 07.08.2025, removing the petlioaer.,furn,the office of Additional Kazi of Qazzat, Qile Mohammed Nagar, flyderahad, is arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without specification of the alleged miscondt.rct attributed to the petitioner and consequently set aside the same and direct tl're respondents not to interfere with the discharge of the functions of the petitioner as Additional Kazi of Qazzat Qile Mohammed Nagar, Hyderabad and its attached local areas. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasbd to suspend the operation.and effect of G.o.Rt.No.65, dated a7.08.2025, removing the petitioner from the office of Additional Kazi of Qazzat, Qile Mohammed Nagar, Hyderabad,pendin!disilosalofthewritpetition.,,'.. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VEDULA VENKATARAMANA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF 1 UIs. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counselfor the'RaqpondentNo.l: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Rbspondent Nos.2 & 3: GP FOR REVENUE .. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI V.M.M. CHARY Counselfor the Beipondent Nos.6 to 11: SRt P. PANDU RANGA REDDY f:t 'l rtu: The Court made$lrg$el lowing : ORDER .t' L wp_24449_202s NEK, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAG ESH MAPAKA WRIT PETITION N of 2025 ORDER: The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that he was appointed under G.o.Ms.No.2, Minority welfare, dated 07.02.2008, as Additional Kazi of eazzat, eile Mohammed Nagar, Hyderabad, and he was removed him from service vide the impugned order, G.O.RLNo.65, dated 07.09.2025, without conducting any enquiry, without speci$,ing any misconduct attributable to him, and without affording him an opportunity to def'end himself, and therefore the same is violative of the procedures under Section 2 oflthe Kazi's Act, lgg0. I.1 It is stated that the petitioner's jurisdiction as Additional Kazi covers the Qazzat, Qile Mohammed Nagar area, comprising parts of Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy Disrricr, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, and portions of Medak District, and his appointment is subsisting, and he has discharged his duties for 15 years strictly in accordance with the Kazi,s Act, 1880, without any occasion for complaint.

1.2 [t'is stated that trre dispute began when the rst respondent issued the first show cause notice dated 07.02.2025, directing him to explain within 15 days why he should not be suspended. This notice was premised on allegations that his Naib Kazis had been invorved in performing child marriages and "various other illegal activities,,, and that they had been arrested by several police stations as reflected in a report of the ACP, Faluknama, South zone dated 27.04.2021. The petitioner reporrs that the notice further invoked the cornmon judgment of the High court dated 30.09.2024 in w.p.l.ro.3gg79 of 2022and w.p.No.34l94 of 20r7, as \ \ \ \ 2 wp_24449 2O2S NBK, I well as the instructions issued under G.O.Ms.No.24, datecl 29'04'2022' ln coffespondence dated 24.02.2025,, the petitioner submitted his formal explanation to the l st respondent, denying the alleg,ations entirely, enclosing detaits of criminal court acquittals relating to tfie accused Naib Kazis, and demanding that the proceeding be dropped. Further, the 1',respondent's show cause notice dated 03.08.2023 accused him of issuing a divorce certificate contrary to existing law, and that tre responded by letter dated 22.08.2023 addressed to the l'trespondent, in r^zhich he asserted that the certificate he issued-described as a "single talal: (talak Rajace)" certificate fully permissible under Shariat principles, and therefore legal. In this communication he again requested that all lurther action may be dropped, and thatneither the first nor second show cause notice identified any act of p.rronui misconduct .onnttlsd r-o his duties as Kazi.Despite this, the l st respondent, allegedly acting unrjer the inf'luence of "enmicatly disposed persons," proceeded to issue G'C''Rt'No'65' dated 07.08.2025, removing him from office. The petitioner asserts that he was given no opportunity to rebut any allegation, and that the State's action constitutes an impermissible ex post facto determination of misconduct- particularly because the Act does not define the terrn "misconduct." Further, the respondent relied on a judgment in W'P'No' t0893 of 2024' decided on 24.04.2024, which merely directed cornpliance with proceedings dated 31.08.2023 and 22.09.2023, that has no bearing on the impugned order.

1.3 The petitioner contends that the only substantive claims ever raised concemed (i) alleged child-marriage performances by his Naib Kazis and (ii) his issuance of a divorce certificate-leither of which amount to rnisconduct under the Act. The petitioner further states that the 3 wp_24449_2025 NBK, J respondent countered the petitioner's case by alleging that the petitioner bore responsibility for the illegal acrs of the Naib Kazis and that his issuance of the divorce certificate constituted a violation of statutory law. The petitioner replies that the Naib Kazis' alleged conduct cannot legally be imputed to him, that shariat law permits the issuance of the single-talak certificate he provided, and that even if the respondent had concerns, they could not bypass the statutory requirement of an enquiry and a finding of misconduct, and therefore the impugned G.o.Rt.No.65, dated 07.0g.2025, is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 2. A counter affidavit is filed by the l.,respondent essentiaily contending that the Government, acting under Section 2 of the Kazi,s Act, appointed the petitioner on 07.02.200g and two others to perform marriages within eile Mohammed Nagar subject to strict terms and conditions' The respondent contends that this appointment occurred only after consultation with the Government Pleader for Social welfare and Minorities welfare, and that the petitioner,s authority was arways conditional upon adherence to the Act. over the years, however, the Govemment received repeated reports of irregular and illegal practices in the petitioner's eazaath. As earry as 25.09.2017, the petitioner had been suspended under G'o'Ms.No.29 for criminal activities undertaken by his appointed Naib Khazis-specificaily Mohd. Naseeruddin, Mirza Qudrathullah Baig, and Habeeb Ari-who were accused in FIR No.163 of 2016 (chandrayangutta Police Station), FIR No.l713 of 2ol7 (Rajendranagar porice Station), FIR No.764 of 2017 (Mairardevpalry Police station), and FIR No. r63 of 20r7 (Faraknuma police Station) of performing marriages of minor girrs, cheating poor families, and enabring exploitation by foreign nationals. Although the pltitioner obtained inrerim 1\ \ \ ) 4 wp_24449_2025 NBK, J relief in W.P.M.P.No.42517 of 2Ol7 in W.P.No.34l94 of'2017, leading to revocation of the suspension, it is contended that revocal.ion was "subject to final orders" and did not exonerate the petitioner of the underlying allegations. Z.l The respondent further contends that vide Common Order dated 30.09.2024 in w.P.No.38879 0f 2022 and w.P.N,c.34194 0f 2017, this Court directed the Government to take action under Section 2 of the Act after considering the report of the Assistant commissioner of Police dated 14.07.2021, the letter of the Deputy Commissione'r of Police dated 13.08.202 t, and the Government's Memo dated 0:;.03 .2022' These documents show serious criminal activities in the petitioner's Qazaath; and the ACP's report stated that the petitioner's Naib Kazi had been arrested on 20.11.2017 and linked to ongoing criminal investigations involving child marriages, and requested that the petitioner be directed to personally perform marriages rather than continue delegating duties to Naib Khazis involved in illegalities. It is contended that, at that time, because the Naib Khazi did not confess regarding the petitioner's role, police did not arrest the petitioner, and the case remained at the charge-sheet stage, but the evidence warranted governmental enquiry based on the directions of this Court. In compliance of the direction of this Court, the Ciovernment issued a show cause norice vide Memo No.3205/Estt.ll20l7, dated 07.02.2025, calling upon the petitioner to explain why he should not be suspended forthe criminal activities carried out by his Naib Khazis, including performing child marriages and facilitating exploitatior-r of minor girls by old-aged Arab sheikhs. The notice expressly referenced the Common Order of this Court passed on 30.09.2024 and stated that failure to provide satisfactory explanation would lead to further action un,Jer the Kazi's Act I 5 wp_24449_2025 NEK, J and G.o.Ms.No.29, dated 29.04.2022, and that the petitioner's reply was "vague and evasive," failing to address the substance of the allegations.

2.2 It is further contended that the Government received a legal notice dated 21.07.2023 from "A to z Associates, Advocates, Bash.eerbogh", stating that a "Talaq Raj'ah" had been pronounced by the husband on 08.07.2023 and would artain legality only after rhe 90-day iddat period concluding on 07. 10.2023. Despite this, the petitioner issued a Divorce Certificate prematurely on 12.07.2023 merely five days after the pronouncement and well within the iddat period, and the same was contrary to Shariah law and amounted to deliberate misconduct. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 03-08-2023 was issued, but again, the petitioner's reply was vague and unsatisfactory.

2.3 It is further contended that the repeated warnings were issued to the petitioner, and reports by the District Collector, Hyderabad, including those dated 31.08.2023, 22.09.2023, and 03.06.2024, all noting ongoing complaints that the petitioner and his Naib Khazis were unlawfully interfering in other Khazi jurisdictions and performing marriages outside their authorized zones. The'District Collector asked the Govemment to initiate stringent action on the petitioner's continued defiance of govemmental instructions despite earlier warnings. It is contended that the "Doctrine of Vicarious Liability," under the maxim respondeat superior("let the principal be liable"), the petitioner-as the 645[s1-6ust answer for the acts of his servants, especially since the Govemment does not appoint Naib Khazis; the petitioner himself appoints and therefore cannot absolve himself of the acts committed by such Naib Khazis. The respondent asserts that the petitioner not only appointed these \ \ \ \ i l i t I 6 wp_24449_2025 NBK, J \ Naib Khazis but also countersigned the marriage booklets and eazaath papers, attesting to the correctness of entries regarding marriages of minor girls performed with his consent. It is contended that the petitioner is a "litigant person" who has filed number of writ pr:titions to maintain monopoly over the Qazaath, engaged in unlawful interference in other jurisdictions, issued illegal divorce certificates, allowed his appointees to conduct marriages of minor girls for .,huge amounts,,, and repeatedly attempted to evade responsibility by blaming Naib Khazis for actions he supervised and approved. [t is finally contended that the cumulative recordlrom FtR r63 of 2016 ro rhe ACp's Report dated 14.07.202[, rhe legal notice dated 2t.07.2023, the colrector,s repoftsr dated 3r.0g.2023, 22-09.2023, and 03.06.2024, and the petitioner,s inadequate replies to notices dated 07.02.2025 and o3.ol.2o23demonstrated a sustained pattern of misconduct and illegality; and on this basis, the Government removed the petitioner through the impugned Order vide G O.Rt.No.65, dated 07.08.2025, exercising its authority under Section 2 of the Kazi,s Act, 1880, and rhere is no illegality in the impugned Order.

3. An implead petition, vide I.A.No.2 of 2025, is fired by the applicants, Qazi Ahmed Shujauddin Quadri and another, seeking impleadmentas respondents No.4 and 5 in the writ pr:tition challenging G'o'Rt'No'65 dated 07.08.2025, by which the writ petirioner was removed from the post of Additional Kazi of Qila Mohammednagar. It is contended that they are necessary parties as they are governmerrt-appointed eazis under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, l gg0, functioning within the Zones created under G.o.Ms.No.l3 dated 20.03.2002. The tirst petitioner was appointed as Qazi of Jahanu ma zone by G.o.Ms.No.3 I dated 0g.r2.202r, and the second petitioner as eazi of Maisaram (p) by G.r).Ms.No. r5 dated 7 wp_24449_2025 NBK, J

02.03.2022, and both have been discharging their duties without complaint' It is contended that G.o.Ms.No.l3 superseded the earlier seven Qazaaths, including eila Mohammednagar, and created 32 zones; the validity of this GO was upheld when W.P.No.6708 of 2002,W.p.No.6744 of 2002, w.P.No.6753 of 2002, and w.p.N o.6735 of 2002 were dismissed by this court; and with the new appointments, the old eazaaths ceased to exist; and therefore the writ petitioner cannot claim relief based on the former jurisdiction of eila Mohammednagar. The impread appricants further recount the complaints, FIR and inquiries against the writ petitioner and his Naib Khazis for performing child marriages, issuing flake marriage booklets, conducting marriages outside their jurisdiction, and issuing illegal divorce certificates, and essentially contend that despite multiple warnings-including Memo dated 09.07.2024 issued pursuant to the orders in w.P.No.t0893 of 2024, and despite interim orders in w.p.No.2375 of 2023 restraining a Naib Qazi, the writ petitioner continued interfering in their jurisdictions and performing marriages there, and therefore their impleadment is essential for adjudication of the writ petition. 4. Another implead petition vide I.A.No.3 of 2025 was filed by eazi Azizullah osmaniseekimpleadment of proposed respondents 4 to 9 in the writ petition, stating that they are necessary parties as they are government-appointed Qazis functioning under the zonal demarcation issued through G.o.Ms.No.l3 dated 20.03.2002. rt is contended that the f-rrst proposed respondents No.4 to 9, respectively, were appointed as eazi of Musheerabad zone by G.o.Ms.No.44 dated 05.09.2023; eazi of Mettuguda zone by G.o.Ms.No.2S dated rg.05.2023; eazi of Ameeqper zone by G.o.Ms-No.r5 dated 06.03.2023; eazi of Khairtabad Zone by G.OrMs.No. l6 dated 06.03.2023; eazi of Asifnagar Zone by ) !' 8 wp_24449_2025 NBK, J G.O.Ms.No. t9 dated 13.04.2023; Qazi of Golc':nda zone by G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 18.05.2023. All appointments t^/ere made under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880, which authorizes both appointment and removal of Qazis. tt is contended that until 2002, Hyderabad and Secunderabad had only seven Qazaaths, and hereditary Qazis could not meet the growing needs of the community. G.O.Ms.No' l 3 reorganized the seven Qazaaths into thirty-two zones. Multiple writ petitions (w.P.Nos .6708, 6744, 6753, 6735 of 2002) challenged this Go, but all were dismissed 15.10.2008 and 17.10.2016-uptrolding the Go's validity. Consequently, earlier jurisdictions, including the historic Qazaath Qila Mohammednagar. stood superseded. The petitioners contend that six of the newly created zones were carved out of the former Qila Mohammednagar area. and they now hold valid appointments there' It is contended that the writ petitioner and another individual, appointed under the pre-2002 structure, lost alt tegal jurisdiction after G'O'Ms'No'13, yet continued to perform marriages in the petitioners' zontls, contrary to the Government Orders and the High Court's directions. The petitioners have already filed w.P.No.8622 of 2025 challenging G.o.Ms.No.2, which concerns the old appointments. It is further contended that the writ petitioner and his Naib Qazis have been repeate{ly implicated in performing child marriages, interfering with other Qazis' areas, and issuing illegal divorce certificates, and that more than 20 FIRs registered against the writ petitioner or his Naib Qazis. They highlight serious allegations, including issuance of a divorce certificate without observing the mandatory iddat period of three menstrual cycles/three months, allegedly divorcing a couple "within one week," which they say violates both law and Sharia princiPles. / -l 9 wp_24449_2025 NBK, J 5' The writ petitioner filed counter affidavits against the implead petitions filed in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025.It is essentially contended in the counter affidavits that the implead applicants in both applications are Kazis of other local areas and have no locus standi to intervene in a writ petition that concerns only the legality of the Government's decision removing him from office. He contends that only the State Government-specifically the Minority welfare Department--can defend the impugned order, and no private individuals, particularly rival Kazis, have any legal right to support or oppose the Government's action in such proceedings. It is contended that the implead applicants are motivated by professional rivalry and jealousy, and have filed the petitions out of spite and prejudice. According to him, they neither possess any legal interest in the subject matter nor qualif, as necessary or proper parties for adjudicating the dispute, which solely concerns whether the State acted lawfully in removing him, and the implead petitions may be dismissed and the main writ petition may be decided on merits after hearing only the l,t respondent-State.

6. Heard Mr. vedula venkataramana, learned senior counser appearing on behalf of the petitioner; and Mr. v.M.M. chary, learned counsel for the impleadedrespondents in I.A.No.2 of 2025, and Mr. p. Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the impleaded respondents in I.A.No.3 of 2025. Perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order, G.o-Rt.No.65 dated 07.09.2025, removing the petitioner from the office of Additional Kazi, eile Mohammed Nagar, is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and bereft of any disclosed miscplrduct. [t is contended that the petitioner has served as Govemment ,#, several decades without ", I t \ \ 10 wp_24449_2025 NBK, J t- btemish and that the impugned action violates the fundamental principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no specific allegation, t:nquiry report, or material indicating misconduct was ever furnished to him prior to the issuance of the impugned order. It is submitted that the petitioner's removal is the product of ulterior motives and prol'essional jealousy harboured by certain Kazis of other local areas who, rlespite having no connection with the petitioner's jurisdiction, have been repeatedly interfering with the functioning of the petitioner and have now sought to support the impugned order through implead petitions.

7.1 Learned counsel contends that the implead applicants lack locus standi, have no legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the writ petition, and are motivated solely by rivalry, which is r:vident from their unwarranted altegations and attempts to expand their jurisdiction. It is contended that the writ petition concerns only the legality of Govemment action and can be effectively defended only by the State, rendering the implead petitions wholly misconceived.

7.2 It is further contended that the petitioner was neither issued a proper show-cause notice nor afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain before the drastic step of removal was taken, thereby the impugned order is vitiated for want of procedural fairness. The pet.itioner's counsel emphasizes that vague references to complaints or FlRsr-many of which relate to incidents involving Naib Qazis and not the petitioner personally- cannot form the basis for removal without a formal enquiry. The petitioner has consistently denied any involvement in the alleged irregularities and asserts that no material was put to him establishing any illegality by the petitioner. It is therefore contended that the Government acted 2) L1 wp 24449_2025 NBK, J mechanically, without independent application of mind, and in complete disregard of the petitioner's long-standing service. Learned counsel thus prays that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the implead * -petitions are also liable to be dismissed, and the petitioner restored to the office of AdditionalKazi, Qile Mohammed Nagar.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the writ petition is wholly devoid of merit, as the impugned G.o.Rt.No.65 date d 07.0g.2025 has been issued strictly in accordance with the authority vested in the Government under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1g90, which expressly empowers the state to suspend or remove a Kazi who is found guilty of misconduct or who acts contrary to the statutory framework governing the office. [t is submitted that the petitioner's removal was neither arbitrary nor uninformed, but was necessitated by a long trail of complaints, police reports, and multiple FIRs concerning the functioning of the petitioner and his Naib Qazis, particularly relating to the performance of child marriages, interference in the jurisdictions of other appointed Kazis, and issuance of divorce certificates in clear violation of Sharia principles and without adherence to essential requirements such as the Iddat period. Learned counsel points out that the implead petitioners in I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2025 were appointed as Kazis for newly demarcated zones under G.O.Ms.No. t3 dated 20.03.2002 and subsequent Government orders, and that the petitioner, despite having no surviving jurisdiction under the old eila Mohammed Nagar Qazaath, continued to trespass into their zones and conduct marriages illegally. This persistent interference, coupled with the petitioner's conduct, compelled both the implead petitioners to approach the Court and the Government to act in the interest of the community. I t t.\ \

1.2 wp_24449_2025 NBK, J

8.1 It is further contended that the petitioner's claim of procedural violation is untenable because show-cause notices wero in fact issued on 03.08.2023 and 07.02.2025, putting him on notice reg;arding allegations relating to illegal divorces and child marriages performed by his Naib Qazis, and the petitioner submitted explanations 'rrhich were duly considered by the Government. The respondents emphasize that the petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the allegations when more than 20 FIRs have been registered involving either him or his Naib Qazis, and that his attempt to distance himself from their acts is misleading, as he is statutorily responsible for their activities r,vithin the Qazlath, and hence the impugned order is both justified and legally sustainable, and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. g. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 contends that the impteaded respondents are necessary and proper parties to the writ proceedings as they are government-appointed Qazis ,rnder section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880, duly functioning within the, territorial Zones constituted under G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 20.03.2002. I': is submitted that respondent No.4 was appointed as Qazi of Jahanuma Zone by G.O.Ms.No.3l dared og.l2.2o2l and respondent No.5 as Qazi of Maisaram (P) by G.o.Ms.No.15 dated 02.03.2022, and both have been discharging their duties without complaint. Counse,l emphasizes that G.O.Ms.No.l3 superseded the earlier seven Qazaaths, including Qila Mohammednagar, and created 32 Zones, thereby exr:inguishing the old eazaathstructure on which the writ petitioner seeks to base his claim. The validity of G.O.Ms.No.l3, it is pointed out, has already been upheld by this Court in W.P.No.6708 of 2002, W.P.No.6744 of 2002. W.P.No.6753 of 2OO2 and W.P.No.6735 of 2002. It is further subrnitted that several /l ,,;'? 13 wP_24449_2025 NBK, J complaints, an FIR and official inquiries have been initiated against the writ petitioner and his Naib Khazis for performing child marriages, issuing fake marriage booklets, conducting marriages outside their jurisdiction and issuing illegal divorce certificates. Despite repeated warnings, including Memo dated 09.07.2024 issued pursuant ro orders in W.p.No.10893 of 2024, and despite interim orders in w.P.No.2375 of 2c23 restraining a Naib Qazi, the writ petitioner continued to interfere within the jurisdictions of respondents No.4 and 5 and to conduct marriages therein. In these circumstances, counsel asserts that the presence of respondents No.4 and 5 is essential for effective adjudication of the challenge to G.o.Rt.No.65 dated 07.08.2025 and for resolving the jurisdictional disputes arising from the petitioner's conduct.

10. Learned counsel for the impleaded respondents in I.A.No.3 of 2025 submits that the proposed respondents 4 to 9 are necessary and proper parties to the writ proceedings, as they are all government-appointed Qazis functioning strictly within the zonal demarcation brought into force by G.O.Ms.No.l3 dated 20.03.2002. Counsel points out that these proposed respondents were respectively appointed as Qazi of Musheerabad Zone (G.O.Ms.N o.44 . dated 05.09.2023), Qazi of Mettuguda Zone (G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 18.05.2023), Qazi of Ameerpet Zone (G.O.Ms.No. 15 dated 06.03.2023), Qazi of Khairtabad Zone (G.O.Ms.No. 16 dated 06.03.2023), Qazi of Asifnagar Zone (G.O.Ms.No.l9 dated 13.04.2023) and Qazi of Golconda Zone (G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 18.05.2023), all under Section 2 of the Kazis Acr, 1880, which empowers the Government to appoint and remove Qazis. It is contended that the pre-2002 system of seven hereditary Qazaaths in Hyderabad and Secunderabad had become obsolete and insufficient to l/'t- ,\ \ t4 wp_24449_2025 NBK, J serve the needs of the expanding community, leading to the comprehensive reorgarization of Qazi jurisdictions under G.O.Ms.N'o. 13. Counsel stresses that the validity of this G.O. was fully upheld when W.P.Nos.6708,6744, 6753 and 6735 of 2002 were dismissed on 15.10.2008 and 17.10.2016, thereby conclusively affirming that all earlier Qazaaths-including the historic Qazaath Qila Mohammednagar-stood superseded. It is argued that six of the newly created zones were carved out from areas previously falling under Qila Mohammednagar, and the proposed respondents now hold valid and exclusive appointments for those zones. Notwithstanding this, the writ petitioner and another individual, who trace their authority to the pre-2002 structure, continued to conduct rnarriages within the petitioners' jurisdictions in defiance of the new .zonal framework, the Govemment Orders, and express directions of this Court. Counsel further submits that the petitioners have already questioned G.O.Ms.No.2 relating to the old appointments by filing W.P.No.8622 of 2t)25.It is also asserted that the writ petitioner and his Naib Qazis have been repeatedly implicated in serious misconduct, including performing child nrarriages, encroaching into other Qazis' territorial jurisdictions, and issuing illegal divorce certificates,.. with more than twenty FIRs having br:en registered against them. Particularly grave allegations include the issuance of a divorce certificate without observing the mandatory iddat period of three menstrual cycles or three months, allegedly dissolving a marriage "within one week," which counsel submits is contrary both to law and to established principles of Sharia. [n these circumstances, it is submitted that the presence of the proposed respondents is indispensable for a compk:te, effective and just adjudicati"rfrthe issues raised in the writ petition. /I 15 wp_24449_2025 NBK, J

11. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted at the outset that the petitioner's challenge to G.O.Rt.No.65 dated 07.08.2025 rests primarily on the assertion that no misconduct was ever attributed to him, that the State acted without enquiry, and that the impugned order is unreasoned and arbitrary. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to paragraph 6 of the impugned Order wherein it is specifically stated as follows I "6. Further in another case, in the reference 9th read above, comptaint received against Sri Mohd. Zaheeruddin, Addl. Khazi, Qile Mohammed Nagar, Hyderabad, regarding issue of illega! Divorce Certificate."

12. [n this connection, it is relevant to refer to paragraphs No. 15, 16, and 21in the counter affidavit of lst respondent, wherein it is stated as follows: "15. lt is pertinent to mention herein that as a Khazi, his duty is to verify whether the parties to the marriage have attained the stipulated age and whether there exists the offer and acceptance, free from any external factors. Khazi ought to have been careful in ascertaining the ages of the parties, to a marriage during the course of enquiry, several marriages between Arab Sheiks and innocent girls in the city of Hyderabad, have come to light. lt is alleged that Khazis and their Naibs have provided facilities to the Arab Sheiks for. their stay and marriage by collecting huge amounts. ln fact Khazi occupies an important place in Muslim Law and had misused their position for monetary gains. A khazi is responsible for the acts and omissions on the part of Naib Khazi appointed by him. He was conferred with adjudicatory and administrative powers and endowed with religious duties and functions. A khazi validly appointed by the Government, in exercise of powers under section 2 or a Naib khazi appointed by a khazi under section 3 of the Act, obviously alone is entitled to maintain records of his/their performance or marriage in regular couft;e of duties and functions and to keep the same as authenticated evidence for future purpose, or to give a copy thereof after marriage to the parties as an evidence of marriage. lt is mandatory duty of the Khazi to collect documentary proof i.e., ldenticatio card/ certificate of the parties to marriage to find out their actualQles in view of the fact t t \ \ 16 wp_24449_2025 NBK, J that verbal statement bride or bridegroom or their parents cannot be relied on at all."

16. lt is respectfully submitted that the format of marriage certificate clearly shows the space earmarked for signature of the Khazi. Therefore, it is clearly evident in each and every marriage performed by the Naib Khazi, the signature of Khazi is mandatory requirement as such the Khazi i.e., the petitioner herein cannot claim ignorance of the marriage pedormed by the Naib Khazi.

21. ln reply to Para 7 of the affidavit it is submitted that a complaint is received against the petitioner vide legal notice dated 21-07' 2023 from AtoZ Associates, Advocates, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, that in the instant case, "Talaq Raj'ah" was pronounced by the husband for the first time on 08-07-2023 and it will attain legality only after completion of lddat period of 90 days i.e., on 7-10-2023. But the petitioner issued Divorce Certificate on 12-07-2023, iust after five days from the date of pronouncement of "Tataq Raj'ah" within a period of iddat which is irregular and illegal against th.e Shariah Law. Thus a show cause notice dated 03-08-2023 was issued to the petitioner why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for misconduct for issuing such irregular and illegat Divorce Certificate contrary to Shariah Law. He submitted vague and evasive reply."

13. Furthermore, it cannot be said that there is no definition of misconduct, and that therefore, any determination of misconduct is 'in law. It is to be noted that the selfl-distancing of the petitioner from the acts of omissions and commissions by the Naib Khazis, impermissible performing impermissible acts of minor-girl marriages. and going beyond the jurisdictional authority, are on the face value of the very acts constitute a conduct that is violative of the statutory responsibilities, which is not permissible as per law, and therefore they would indisputably amount to misconduct. Further, it is unrebutted contention ()f the respondent authorities that the Government is not the appointing atrthority of the Naib Khazis aird it is the petitioner who appoints them, and on nulnerous '.'': I 7 17 w9_24449_2025 NBK, J occasions the petitioner was warned not to delegate the duties to Naib Khazis and that the petitioner has not heeded to the warnings about the illegalities being committed and complaints being filed against the Naib Khazis, and therefore the petitioner cannot feign ignorance or absolve himself of the acts and activities being performed by such Naib Khazis. Further, except a broad denial and general assertions of innocence, the petitioner has not furnished substantive explanation to counter the specific allegations repeatedly emerging from official enquiries, including multiple FIRs registered over the years against his office or his Naib Qazis for performing child marriages, issuing illegal divorce certificates, and interfering with the jurisdiction of other appointed Kazis. Furthermore, though the petitioner refers to acquittals in certain cases, there was no plausible explanation for repeated registration of cases and the findings of the Assistant Commissioner of Police in the report dated 14.07.2021. Further, there are specific findings recorded in the Report of the ACp, referring to ten FIRs/CCs, the District Collector's enquiry reports dated 31.08.2023, 22.09.2023 and 03.06.2025, the Govemment Memoranda warning him not to interfere in other jurisdictions, and judicial directions in earlier writ proceedings directing the Government to consider these reports and takeaction under Section 2 of the Act. t3.I Further, the governing statute is the Kazis Act, r 880, which vests the State Government with authority to appoint, suspend, or remove a Kazi on grounds including misconduct or unfitness. The petitioner,s contentions about absence of a statutory definition of "misconduct,, does not inter alia justiff the illegalities committed either by him, or by the Naib Khazis under him, and the nature of illegalities and irrQularities are proof- positive to connote as violative of the statutory responsibilities. \ \ r' 1_8 wp-24449-2025 NBK, J Undoubtedly,performingofchildmarriages,issuingiltegaldivorce certificates, and exceeding jurisdictional authority, ca.nnot be termed ..bonafide,'orlegal,andsuchactsareunbecomingoftheauthoritybeing exercisedbythepetitioner,eitherbyhimorthroughhimlcyhisappointees. Fufther, the Kazis Act expressly confers wide administrative discretion upon the State, and the courts have consistentry held that where the statute confers such discretion'' the scope of judicial revi:w is limited to examiningwhetherthedecisionisarbitraryorunsupp,ortedbymaterial. The materiars retied upon by the r,t respondent-Government-particularly themultiplelaw-enforcementreports,judicialdirectionsinearlierwrit petitions,andtherepeatedcomplaintsregardingthetnisuseofnrarriage bookrets and the performance of marriages outside lurisdiction-amply justifytheirnpugnedaction.Thevariouscomplaintsmadeagainstthe petitioner,andtheveryargumentofthepetitioner,ir.paragraphgofthe writaffidavit,statingthat,,Firstly,thatmyNaibKaziswerepetforming marriagesofminorgirls,cannotbeattributedtonle,,isastatementof irresponsibilitynotexpectedofapersonwhowasspecif,rcallyappointedto overseeandadministervariousactsstricttyinaccor.lancewiththeKazis Act.Furthermore,itisthespecificunrebutted"",,::l,'l:tofthe respondents,borneoutbytherecordaSperthecounteraffidavit,thatfor eachandeverymarriageperformedbytheNaibKhazi,thesignatureof Khazi(i.e.,thepetitioner)ismandator},andthereforethepetitionercannot pleadignoranceofthemarriageperformedbytheNaibKhazi.Andeven i i: i1 withregardtotheDivorceCertificate,theSamehasbeenissuedon 1l |2,0.|.2023whichiswithinfivedaysofpronouncenrentofTataqRaj,ahby the husband on 08'07 '2023' without following the mandatory waiting period of three months as per Shariat Law' i I Irli / / I I I i I \ 19 wp_24449_2025 NBK, J l3'2 With regard to the contention of procedural fairness, it is explicit from the record that the petitioner was issued show-cause notices dated 07'02'2025 and 03-08.2023, placing him on notice of the allegations and calling for his explanation. The petitioner had full opportunity to present his defence, and nothing prevented him from pracing arr rerevant documents before the authority, and therefore it cannot be said that there was violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the counter affidavit reveals various enquiry reports, registration of cases on illegalities, and the findings in the ACp reports, and also the warnings issued by the District Collector and other authorities with regard to violations in following the statutory responsibilities by the petitioner. q {

13.3 Further, there is no dispute that the authority issuing the impugned order, G.o.Rt.No.65 is the competent Government under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, fully empowered to take disciplinary action. The petitioner's contention that he was not appointed under newer Zonal divisions, or that his position as "Addition al Kazi,, was immune from removal, has no foundation in the Act. once the statute vests plenary power of removal in the Government, and the Government,s conclusions are based on cogent material, the same cannot be countered by a mere denial, without there being any substantive evidence for such denial. Furthermore, it is a matter bome out by the record, and also as a requisite under the statute, that any marriage performed by the Naib Khazis invariably bears the signature of the Khazi (the petitioner) and the petitioner cannot plainly deny merely for the sake of denial. In that view of the matter, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order do not disclose any grounds warranting intervention by this Court under \ \ I I 20 w9_24449_2025 NBK, J extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226; and the writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costr;. [n view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the implead applications are closed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/=AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ISTANT REGISTRAR To //TRUE COPYI/ 1 One CC to M/s. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES, 2 Two CCs to GP fff Social Welfare, High Court for .1.. Hyderabad. [OUT].t ECTION OFFICER IoPUCI th e Sl.ate of Telangana at

3. Two CCs to GP- tor Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. IOUTI i

4. One CC to SRI V M lrl CHARY, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to SRI P PANqy RANGA REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies MP PMK I I T HIGH COURT DATED:2511112025 () * S !j 2 0E[ 2025 * ORDER WP.No.24Mg ot 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS l& ?"