KHAJI ABDUL WAHAB SIDDIGIR Vs. GOVT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question involved in this case is whether the appointment of a Naib Kazi or a Deputy Kazi by a Kazi has to be made with the previous apprqval of the State Government THE petitioner was functioning as a Kazi under the Kazis Act, 1880 (hereinafter referred to as the, Act) in respect of the Dist of Gulbarga. That in the year 1948 the petitioner appointed his son respondent 3 as a Naib Kazi with the previous approval of the State Govt. In the year 1972 the petitioner decided to terminate the appointment of respondent 3 as Naib Kazi and he gave a petition to the Dist Wakf Committee to permit him to do so. THE President of the Dist Wakf Committee granted his request. Respondent 3 was accordingly removed by the petitioner. THEreafter respondent 3 appears to have moved the State Govt to restore him to his former position as Naib Kazi. THE State Govt by its order d/14-9-73 directed that respondent 3 should be continued as Naib Kazi notwithstanding the termination of his appointment by the petitioner on the ground that the removal of respondent 3 from the post of Naib Kazi without the previous approval of the State Govt was illegal. Aggrieved by the order of the State Govt, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows : 3. Naib Kazi. Any Kazi appointed under this Act may appoint one or more persons as his Naib or Naibs to act in his place in all or any of the matters appertaining to his office throughout the whole or in any portion of the local area for which he is appointed, and may suspend or remove any Naib so appointed.

(2.) WHEN any Kazi is suspended or removed under S.2, his Naib or Naibs (if any) shall be deemed to be suspended or removed, as the case may be. It is clear from the provisions of the Act extraced above that the previous approval of the State Govt is not necessary either for the appointment of a Naib Kazi or for his removal. It is no doubt true that in the instant case the petitioner had obtained the previous approval of the State Govt in the year 1948, when the Act was not in force in the area in question, for the appointment of respondent 3 as a Naib Kazi. But the rights and obligations of Kazis are governed by the provisions of the Act after 1-4-1951 in the local area, with which we are concerned. Under Sec.3 of the Act the petitioner could remove respondent 3 from the post of Naib Kazi without the approval of the State Govt. The reason given by the State Govt for setting aside the decision of the petitioner removing respondent 3 from his post is, therefore, unsustainable. The petition is accordingly allowed. The order of the State Govt is set aside. Respondent 3 is directed not to act as Naib Kazi either on the basis of the appointment made in the year 1948 by the petitioner or on the basis of the Govt order which is set aside in this case. No costs.