Qazi Syed Mukthadir Al.! aua!r! v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 pleased to Stay the proceedings of the District Collector dt.N.02.2O2 4, pending disposal of the writ appeal- Counsel for the Appellant : SRI P.PANDU RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.l&2 : SPL.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI SYED SOHAIL Counsel for Respondents No.4&S:SRl K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR GP,MP,ZP The Court made the following: JUDGMENT Iil THE HTGH COURT F1OR THE STATE OF TEI, INGANA AT TTYDERABAD THE HON'BLE JT'STICE MOUSHT'MI BTIATTA( HARYA THE H.N'BL" ro"tr"f3orr *RA,EEN Kt rI'rAR WRIT APPEAL No.1489 OF 2o25 2gthDecember, 2025 Between: Qazi Syed Mukthadir AIi Quadri AND The State of Telangana and 3 otl'r.ers ,....Appellant ..., Respondents Mr.P.Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel appearing for fta' Lppellant' The learned Special Government Pieader for social welfare a rpearing for the respondent No. 1 Mr.Syed Sohail, learned counsel appearing for tlle responde n No 3' Mr.K.Pradeep Reddy, tearned counsel appearing for the res; < rdent No'4' JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'bte .,ustice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dalr I 12'11'2025 passed by a iearned Single Judge of this Court in VI P'No'15984 of 2024 fi,\ed, by the appellant/writ petitioner seekinti issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respcedent No'2 in issuing proceedings dated 26.02.2024 and recor Lmending the respondent No.3 as Qazi of Vikarabad Municipality e rd Mandal, as iltegal, arbitrary and consequently to set aside the sir oe. 2 4 *.o.*"Ti!"*"fih! By the impugned order dated 12.11.2025, the learned Single 2 Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the respondent No.3 had been recommended to be appointed as Government Qazt pursuant to the report submitted by the Tahsildar and the local police and that there was no scope for interference in the findings contained in the report.

3. Learned counsel appearing for ttre appellant/ writ petitioner submits that the recommendation should be set aside since the Iindings given in the recommendation with regard to the qualihcation of the respondent No.3 is false. Counsel submits that the respondent No.3 does not have four years' experience as Naib Qazi under the jurisdiction of Qazath Nagarkurnool from August, 2Ol7 to December, 2O2 1. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was performing his duties of Qazi for Viakarabad District and also had credible information that the respondent No.3 did not serve as the Qazi of Nagarkurnool for four years r.vhich would be evident from the letter written by the functionary of the Nagarkurnool to the Government in November, 2024. Counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed as Qazi in 2005 and the respondent No.3 applied for the post of Qazi, Vikarabad, only in

2022. Cotnsel further submits that the respondent No.2 failed to take the appellant's objection into consideration :-T::T7 3 TIIB,J & GPK,J W.A ) o.7489 ol 2025

4. l,earned counsel appearing for the respondenl {o.3 submits that the recommendation was made by the respo'-t following the due process and also that the l appointment of Government Qazi specifically stz lent No.2 by reck list for -es that the marriages and rituals are being performed by Shad.nagar of Mahabubnagar and the needs of '- the Qazi of rcal Principal Mohammadans shows that a Sadar Qazi is requirerl lor Vikarabad Mandal and Municipality of Vikarabad District.

5. We have also heard the learned Special Gove: Lment Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondent N:1who places G.O.Ms.No.24, clated 29.04.2022 to urge that the 'iovernment is empowered to appoint a Qazi for a particular Distric:

6. The challenge in the present case relates to issued by the respondent No.2 on 26.O2.2O24 he proceeding whereby the respondent No,2 recommended the name of the reslr ,ndent No.3 as the Government Sadar Qazi for Vikarabad Mandal ar d Municipality of Vikarabad District. The recommendation contains the experience and qualihcations of the respondent lo.3 for being recommended to the said post. \, t 4 MB,J & GPK,J W.A.No.7489 of 2025 7 . First, we wish to state that the Writ Petition was premature since the proceeding dated 26.02.2O24 issued by the respondent No.2 is merely a recommendation and not a frnal appointment. The Court is informed that the recommendation is not the hnal step and the Government must prove the recommendation in terms of G.O.Ms..No.24 dated 29.04.2022 issued by the Minority Welfare (Estt-1) Department of the Government of Telangana dated

29.O4.2022.

8. Second, the very same G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 29.04.2022 delineates a procedure and sequential steps for appointment of a Qazi by the Government. Step 3 underlines an enquiry/ consultation with the Principal Muhammadan Residents of the local area and empowers the District Collector to conduct an enquiry to ascertain whether there is a need to appoint a Qazi for the said local area. Step 3 also includes a case where a Qazi in that district is already appointed but there is a need to appoint more number of Qazis depending on the number of Principal Muhammadans of that area and whether they are in favour of appointment of the applicant as Qazi. Step 4 involves a recommendation of case by the District Collector to the Government where the District Collector shall send his report to \the Government duly recommending the case for appointme- t as 5 MB,J&GPK,J W.A.n t 7489 of 2025 Qazi along with the check list' Step 5 involves proc )ssing of the proposal received from the District Collector at th: Government level and appointment of the applicant as Qazi only th reafter'

9. The above step-wise procedure makes it cl impugned recommendation dated 26 'O2 '2024 was or.t Step 3 of the G.O.Ms.No.24 and does not arr < appointment of the respondent No'3 as Qazl Municipality and Mandal. Moreover, section 3 of I 1880 empowers the State Government to select or persons to appoint him or them to be Qazis of a lt taking into consideration the number of local Mu r any local area and their desire to appoint one or mo: local area. Section 2 also stipulates that the decisj< Government shall be conclusive rvith regard to rar that the y in terms of unt to frnal ,f Vikarabad re Kazis Act, I Or more fit :al area after rmmadans in Qazis in that n of the State any question relating to the appointment of the Qazis under the srr d provision.

10. Hence, there is no dispute that the respor ( ent No'2 was authorised to recommend the name of the respondtr t No.3 as Qazi of Vikarabad Municipality and Mandal' The heck list for appointment as Governme nt Qazi, which is part of 1l e records' also states that marriages and rituals of Vikarab I I were being performed by the Qazis of Shadnagar, Ran11 . Reddy and tvtaha\ubnagar Districts and that the L<:al Principal MB,J & GPI<,J W.A.No.74a9 of 2025 Muhammdans need a Sadar Qazr for Vikarabad Municipality and 6 Mandal of Vikarabad District. t

11. Annexure 1 of the G.O.Ms.No.24 containing the Frequently Asked Questions ('FAQs') also makes it clear that the Government is under an_ obligation to consult the Principal Muhammdan Residents of the local area and conduct summarSr enquiry as directed by the District Collector and prepare a record of such enquiry including the Principal Muhammadan Residents in that area.

12. The impugned recommendation dated 26.02.2024 specifically states that the District Collector, Vikarabad District, has conducted an enquiry with regard to ascertaining whether there is a need to appoint a Qazi for Vikarabad Municipality and Mandal and the enquiry report has been submitted in that regard. The report also refers to the police verihcation certihcate by the Station House Officer, Vikarabad with regard to the application of the respondent No.3. Notably, the recommendation further states that the appointment sha,ll be made subject to verification of the anticidents of the respondent No.3 by the police. Thus, there is no evidence of any subversion of The Kazis Act, 188O and the guidelines framed thereunder. 7

13. The learned Single Judge was of the view that tl recommendation is not a fr.nal order and that the Writ been frled in haste w'ithout any valid reason' Therefc r MB,J & GPK'J W.A.lk 1489 of 2025 e impugned Petition has :, we do not hnd any reason to interfere with the decision taken t'' the learned Single Judge particularly since it is evident that the <r Lly grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner is curtailing area of ,.is functions i.e., Vikarabad Municipality and Mandal' The Cou:- that the appellant / writ petitioner will continue tc functions in the Ranga Reddy and Matrabubnagar is informed perform his )istricts and that only Vikarabad District has been taken away r rm his work area. We do not frnd any justification for filing of zr Writ Petition which is not only premature but also without any le 1 .al basis. The appellant has not shown any ground to interfere with he impugned order dated 12.11.2025. We accordingly hnd the Wr 1 Appeal to be devoid of merit. L4. W.A.No.1489 of 2025, along with all connecteJ applications' is accordingly dismissed. No costs. S )/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEI UTY REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY'/ S ECTION OFFICER To, One CC to SRI P.PANDU RANGA REDDY' Advocate [Of' lC] One CC to SRI SYED SOHAIL' Advocate [OPUC] TwoCCstoGPFoRSoClALWELFARE,HighCourtfortreStateof Telangana. [OUT] One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY' SC FOR ZPP' MP IPP [OPUC] -r.^,^ an f:nnies 1 2 n 4 E /7 * HIGH COURT DATED:2911212025 ,FrB toR llli: S r't( i * O+ x JUDGMENT WA.No.1489 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ...L )" 0 / (1/q