Skip to content


Khaji Abdul Wahab Siddiqui Vs. the Government of Karnataka and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 217 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1975Kant133; ILR1975KAR644; 1975(1)KarLJ416
ActsKazis Act, 1880 - Sections 3
AppellantKhaji Abdul Wahab Siddiqui
RespondentThe Government of Karnataka and ors.
Appellant AdvocateM.M. Jagirdar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM. Ramakrishna, High Court Govt. Pleader and ;N. Santosh Hegde, Adv.
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]sections 168 & 173; [ram mohan reddy, j] compensation appeal against - claimant was an in-patient in the hospital for 13 days non-examination of the doctor who treated the claimant at the general hospital - uncorroborated medical certificate which certifies that the claimant sustained fractures of the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs held, tribunal fell in serious error and occasioned grave injustice to the appellant in not properly appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary before concluding that the claimant suffered from fractures of the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs in the accident that occurred. thus it goes without saying that disability cannot be believed and is unacceptable. compensation of rs. 1,49,000/- awarded by tribunal was reduced to.....order1. 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 approval of the state government.2. the petitioner was functioning as a kazi under the kazis act, 1880 (hereinafter referred to as the act) in respect of the district 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 government. in the year 1972 the petitioner decided to terminate the appointment of respondent-3 as naib kazi and he gave a petition to the district wakf committee to permit him to da so. the president of the district wakf committee granted his request. respondent-3 was accordingly removed by the petitioner. thereafter res-pondent-3 appears to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

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 approval of the State Government.

2. The petitioner was functioning as a Kazi under the Kazis Act, 1880 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the District 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 Government. In the year 1972 the petitioner decided to terminate the appointment of respondent-3 as Naib Kazi and he gave a petition to the District Wakf Committee to permit him to da so. The President of the District Wakf Committee granted his request. Respondent-3 was accordingly removed by the petitioner. Thereafter res-pondent-3 appears to have moved the State Government to restore him to his former position as Naib Kazi. The State Government by its order dated 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 Government was illegal. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Government, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. 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.

When any Kazi is- suspended or removed under Section 2, his Naib or naibs (if any) shall be deemed to be suspended or removed, as the case may be.'

4. It is dear from the provisions of the Act extracted above that the previous approval of the State Government is not necessary either for the appointment of a Naib Kazi or for his removed. It is no doubt true that in the instant case the petitioner had obtained the previous approval of the State Government in the year 1948, when (he Act was not in force in the area- in question, for die 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 Section 3 of the Act the petitioner could remove respondent-3 from the post of Naib Kazi without the approval of the State Government. The reason given by the State Government 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 Government 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 Government order which is set aside in this case.

5. No costs.

6. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //