Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. Challenge in this Original Petition is against Ext. P4, a notice issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, the 2nd respondent. The petitioner seeks a direction not to give effect to Ext. P4 notice. 2. By Ext. P4, the 2nd respondent has invited application from interested persons for appointment of 'Kazis for Juma Masjid at Andrott in the vacancy caused due to the death of the then existing 'Kazi' namely one Pattakal Pookkoya Thangal. Ext. P4 shows that appointment is intended in terms of the Kazis Act, 1880, and that such notice was issued upon instruction from the Administrator of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. It is further stated that applications received will be considered on the basis of an interview by a Committee consisting of Scholars from the main land. 3. The petitioner submits that he is a member of Pattakal tharvadu to which the deceased' Kazi' belonged. He submits that the position of Kazi' is hereditary and only a member of the said family can function as a'Kazi'. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to function in place of the deceased' Kazi' and therefore there is no reason to issue Ext. P4 notice. 4. It is contended that under S.2 of the Kazis Act, a Kazi can be appointed only to any local area and not to a Masjid as mentioned in Ext. P4. Ext. P4 does not mention any area to which the Kazi has to be appointed. It is also contended that a'4Kazi' under the said Act can be appointed only when "any considerable number of the Muhammadans resident in any local area desire that one or more Kazi should be appointed for such local area". In such case, "the principal Muhammadan residents of such local area" shall be consulted and one or more fit persons can be selected for appointment of Kazi for such area. Ext. P4 does not conform to this, the petitioner contends. 5. Ext. P4 is only a notice inviting application. Normally, a Juma Masjid is for a local area. Merely because no local area is mentioned, or anything about the desire of considerable number of Muhammadans is not mentioned in Ext. P4, it cannot be said to be illegal. Only at the time of appointment it need be - looked into whether requirement of S.2 of the said Act had been complied with. Merely because no local area is mentioned, or anything about the desire of considerable number of Muhammadans is not mentioned in Ext. P4, it cannot be said to be illegal. Only at the time of appointment it need be - looked into whether requirement of S.2 of the said Act had been complied with. It is contended by the Additional 3rd respondent that there was a request by the local residents for appointment of Kazi. Consultation with the principal Muhammadan residents need be made only at the time of appointment. It is true that Ext. P4 make mention of appointment by a Committee including the Scholars of the main land. Such a Committee is not envisaged by S.2. But if there are more contestant applicants, in order to consider the suitability, an administrative authority can always appoint a Committee to interview the candidates and to ascertain the suitability. That is not prohibited by the Act. There is no consultation with the interview committee. Consultation shall always be with principal Muhammadans of such local area. Occasion for consultation arise only after the interviewing committee selects suitable candidates. Therefore, there is nothing illegal in constituting the committee including the Scholars of the main land, to select candidates. 6. The further contention is that the deceased Kazi was not one appointed under the Act. The Kazis Act was made applicable to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep as per Regulation No. 2/1970. It is not clear when the deceased Kazi was first appointed. If it is earlier than 1970 naturally, it cannot be under the Act as the Act was not enforced at that time. In such case, the ensuing appointment will be the first appointment after the enforcement of the Act. That shall be necessarily as per the Act. Even if the deceased Kazi had been appointed alter the enforcement of the Act, there is nothing illegal in appointing a Kazi in terms of the said Act. As per S.4 of the Kazis Act, nothing contained in the Act or any appointment made under the Act shall be deemed to prevent any person discharging any of the functions of a Kazi. Thus, the deceased Kazi could have functioned even if another Kazi had been appointed under the Act. As per S.4 of the Kazis Act, nothing contained in the Act or any appointment made under the Act shall be deemed to prevent any person discharging any of the functions of a Kazi. Thus, the deceased Kazi could have functioned even if another Kazi had been appointed under the Act. Therefore, whether the deceased Kazi was appointed under the Act or not, is not at all a relevant issue to decide the legality or otherwise of Ext. P4. 7. The next contention is that the wishes of the principal Muhammadans are not expressed so far. Desire shall come from considerable number of Muhammadans residents. The petitioner cannot say that the considerable number of Muhammadans had not expressed their desire. The additional 3rd respondent submits that there was such request to the Administration. When administration has issued Ext. P4, naturally, it has to be presumed that there was a desire expressed by considerable number of Muhammadans. The role of principal Muhammadans comes only at the time of consultation just prior to appointment. No consultation need be made before a notification like Ext. P4 is issued. If the petitioner is of the view that there had been no expression of desire by considerable number of Muhammadans for appointment of a Kazi under the Act, he is free to point out the same to the Administrator. On the basis of such contention, Ext. P4 cannot be quashed. 8. It is further contended that there is no provision in the Act for involvement of Scholars from the main land. The Scholars are involved in the process not for consultation but for ascertaining the suitability for interviewing the candidates. As already mentioned above, it is not prohibited by the Act. The petitioner is in a misconception that the Scholars of the main land are involved in the process for the purpose of consultation. It is not so. They are involved in the process only for the purpose of ascertaining suitability of the candidates and it is only after that consultation with principal Muhammadans arises. 9. It is further contended that though by Regulation 2 of 1970 the Act has been extended to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, S.2 of the Kazi Act such has not been enforced. Relevant portion of S.2 reads as follows: "2. 9. It is further contended that though by Regulation 2 of 1970 the Act has been extended to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, S.2 of the Kazi Act such has not been enforced. Relevant portion of S.2 reads as follows: "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 Muhammadan residents of such local area, select one or more fit persons and appoint him or them to be Kazis for such local area". The Kazis Act as such was not applicable to any area other than the territories administered by the Governor of Fort St. George in Council. But any State Government is given power to extend the Act to the whole or any part of the territories under its administration. Union Territory of Lakshadweep being a centrally administered area, 'the Laccidive, Minicoy and Amini Islands (Laws) No. 2 Regulation 1970' was issued extending certain Acts including Kazis Act to that area. By reason of that, the Act in its entirely had been extended to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep as is presently known. Therefore, no separate notification for application or enforcement of S.2 of the Act is necessary. 10. There is one more aspect. The Act does not provide for any piece-meal enforcement of any of the provisions of the Act. The Act shall either be extended in full or not extended at all. It cannot be extended in part, as per S.I.On that basis also the contention that S.2 had not been enforced in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep is not tenable. 11. The petitioner claims that the position of Kazi is hereditary to his family and that he had been acting as "naib" (assistant) of the deceased Kazi and therefore on his death the office devolves on him. I( is submitted that for several public functions he had been accepted as Kazi or to represent Kazi. This contention also cannot be accepted. The position of Kazi in Muslim Lawis that of a judge or a judicial officer. Such a position cannot be stated to devolve hereditary. It shall be an appointment by the State, wherever it is recognised, for a particular area. This contention also cannot be accepted. The position of Kazi in Muslim Lawis that of a judge or a judicial officer. Such a position cannot be stated to devolve hereditary. It shall be an appointment by the State, wherever it is recognised, for a particular area. Mulla also in "Principles of Muhammadan Law" accepts the position that Muhammadan Law does not regard the office of Kazi as hereditary and such claim cannot be accepted by the civil court. Appointment shall either be by Government or by some internal arrangement among the Muslims of each locality. 12. The decision reported in Mohammed Isak Saheb & Ors. v. Najaruddin Shaman Saheb Mulla & Ors. (AIR 1962 Mysore 253) also supports this view. An office like that of Kazi, the functions of which was judicial at its inception, but later turned to be holy religious, cannot be regarded as hereditary in nature. The Muslim Law does not recognise any hereditary priestly class. It must be held by a person duly qualified by education, learning and training as well. The Court held, "Tyabj, J. in Sattappa Gurusattappa linker v. Mahomed Saheb Appalal Kazi AIR 1936 Born. 227, while clearly stating this principle of Muslim Law, no doubt adds that in India these offices have tended to be hereditary in the sense that members of the same family held the same office generation after generation. B ut, such practice cannot, in our opinion, be elevated to the status of a regular rule of Muslim Law in derogation of the principle stated above. On the contrary, such successive holding of office by members of the same family must, in the eye of the Muslim Law, be referred either to an appointment by the ruler or king or to a voluntary choice by the Jamat of a Mosque or the Muslim community of a village locality". Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that the position of Kazi is hereditary in nature. 13. Even if the petitioner's contention mat he succeeds to the deceased Kazi, the position being hereditary in nature, is accepted, that will not prevent the Administration choosing a Kazi in terms of the Kazis Act. Appointment of Kazi made under the Act shall not be deemed to prevent any person discharging any of the functions of the Kazi as per S.4 of the said Act. Appointment of Kazi made under the Act shall not be deemed to prevent any person discharging any of the functions of the Kazi as per S.4 of the said Act. On its basis also, the petitioner cannot resist appointment in terms of Ext. P4. Therefore, challenge against Ext. P4 fails. O.P. is dismissed.