Judgment :- Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. The dispute is over the appointment of Kazi for Afzalpur Taluk. Both the petitions are directed against the same order dated 27.2.2009 (Annexure Zin W.P.No.81366/09 and Annexure A in W.P.No.81310/09). By the impugned order, the respondent No.4 Syed Ghousuddin is appointed as Kazi of Afzalpur Taluk for 92 villages and the respondent No.3 Mohd. Hussain Siddiqui is continued as Kazi of 21 villages of Afzalpur Taluk. 2. Smt. Hema L Kulkarni, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of Kazis has to precede the consultation of the Government with the principal Mohammedan residents of the local area. She brings to my notice the provisions contained in Section 2 of the Kazis Act which are extracted herein below: “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.” 3. She submits that the petitioners have produced 8 documents which have not even received the cursory consideration at the hands of the first respondent. She brings to my notice the panchanama (Annexure – S). It states that the panchas went to the residence of Rahimuddin Kazi and made enquiries with his neighbours. The religious services like marriages, sunath and other religious services were being performed by Rahimuddin Kazi. On his death on 21.1.2007, his son Riyazuddin (the petitioner No.1) has been performing the religious services. She also brings to my notice the receipts issued by Mysore State Board of Wakfs for having receiving the money from Rahimuddin towards the supply of the marriage forms. It is her grievance that all these vital documentary evidence has not been taken into consideration by the respondent No.1. In the course of arguments, she has also filed a memo with copies of two siyanams (marriage certificates). The same are taken on record. 4. Sri. Vijay Kumar, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.81310/2009 submits that the petitioner is the nephew of a former Kazi of Afzalpur Taluk, namely, Gulam Mohammed. He submits that Gulam Mohammed had no male issues. The same are taken on record. 4. Sri. Vijay Kumar, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.81310/2009 submits that the petitioner is the nephew of a former Kazi of Afzalpur Taluk, namely, Gulam Mohammed. He submits that Gulam Mohammed had no male issues. He virtually treated the petitioner as his son. On his demise in 1994 he has been performing the religious services. He applied for Kaziship in 2003. Though Syed Ghousuddin did not produce an iota of documentary evidence and the petitioner produced voluminous documents, the respondent No.1 overlooking everything has appointed Syed Ghousuddin as the Kazi for 92 villages of Afzalpur Taluk. He brings to my notice the Annexures at E1 to E10 and J1 to J4, the marriage certificates issued by the Gulam Mohammed/petitioner from 1970 till today. He also brings to my notice the receipts issued by the Mysore State Board of Wakfs (Annexures K1 to K9) for having received the money from Kazi Gulam Ahmed towards the supply of marriage forms. The petitioner has also produced the affidavits at Ex.P.1 to P.19 of different residents of Afzalpur, which states that the deponents are all Muslims, that Gulam Mohammed was officiating as the Kazi and that on his death, the petitioner is officiating as Kazi. At Annexure P.20 is the recommendatory letter issued by the local M.P. belonging to the same community; at Annexure P.21 is the certificate issued by the local MLA stating that the petitioner has been serving as the Kazi ever since the death of his father. Lastly, Sri Vijay Kumar brings to my notice the certificate at Ex.P.24 issued by Town Panchayath Office, Afzalpur to the effect that the petitioner is serving as the Kazi for Afzalpur Taluk from many years after his father’s death. It is the grievance of Sri Vijay Kumar that none of these documents have weighed with the respondent No.1. He also has the grievance over the first respondent’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements contained in Section 2 of the Act, which provisions are extracted hereinabove. 5. Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, the Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 fairly submits that the matter may have to be remanded, as the respondent No.1 did not hold the consultations with the local Muslim leaders of the area, as prescribed under Section 2 of the said Act. 6. 5. Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, the Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 fairly submits that the matter may have to be remanded, as the respondent No.1 did not hold the consultations with the local Muslim leaders of the area, as prescribed under Section 2 of the said Act. 6. Sri Appa Rao, the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 Syed Ghousuddin submits that the petitioner Liyakath is not at all related to the family of the Kazis. He is not the son of Gulam Mohammed. There is no provision for the adoption in Muslim Law. He further submits that Gulam Mohammed was not a Kazi in his own right. He was only a Nayib Kazi under the third respondent Syed Ghousuddin’s father. He submits that as the petitioner is a Government servant, he cannot be appointed as the Kazi, because Kazi has to be available for the people at all hours of the day. Kaziship is a full-time service. Therefore one cannot be both a full-pledged Government servant and a full-pledged Kazi simultaneously. 7. Sri Prabhakar A, the Learned Counsel adopts the submission of Sri Appa Rao as the said two Learned Advocates appear for the same party in two different petitions. 8. Sri R S Sidhapurkar, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Mohd. Hussain Siddiqui submits that the petitioners have no legally vested right to claim the Kaziship. He also submits that the 4th respondent Mohammed Hussain Siddiqui’s appointment as the Kazi of Gulbarga and its 314 villages is ratified vide Government Order dated 7.3.1981. He submits that this order has attained finality, as this has not been the subject matter of any challenge or any proceedings in the past. 9. The Learned Counsel, Sri Sidhapurkar also submits that the competent Civil Court has given the declaration that the 4th respondent Hussain’s father was the sole Kazi of Gulbarga. He submits that the question of holding the consultations for reappointment would not arise at all. Consultation with the local Muslim leaders, according to the Learned Counsel, is required only if somebody is required to the appointed as Kazi for the first time. 10. Admittedly the impugned order is passed without consulting the principal Mohammedan residents of the concerned area as stipulated in Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880. Consultation with the local Muslim leaders, according to the Learned Counsel, is required only if somebody is required to the appointed as Kazi for the first time. 10. Admittedly the impugned order is passed without consulting the principal Mohammedan residents of the concerned area as stipulated in Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880. No doubt, the words used in the Section that ‘if it thinks fit’ may not be the words of compulsion. But the said words are also capable of being construed as a compellable duty. The wide discretion conferred by these words has to be exercised ‘fairly and bona fide’ keeping in view the purpose for which it is conferred. Further, the words ‘as it thinks fit’ do not give the discretion to take action outside the statute. The discretion has to be exercised according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion. In the entire impugned order, there is no mentioning that it is not feasible or viable to consult the principal Mohammedan residents of Afzalpur Taluk. 11. It is profitable to refer to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Keshav Bahadur and Others AIR 2004 SC 1581 Para 10 of the said decision reads as follows: .“10. The word “discretion” standing single and unsupported by circumstances signifies exercise of judgment, skill or wisdom as distinguished from folly, unthinking or haste; evidently therefore a discretion cannot be arbitrary but must be a result of judicial thinking. The word in itself implies vigilant circumspection and care; therefore, where the Legislature concedes discretion it also imposes a heavy responsibility.” 12. When the statute provides for consultation, it is not safer to exercise the power of appointment without holding the consultation; otherwise it may lead to the fanciful or arbitrary exercise of discretion, which is not permissible. 13. It is also profitable to refer to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Khazi Mohd. Abbas Ali vs. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board and Others AIR 1979 AP 116 . Its relevant portion is extracted herein: “20. But the question for consideration is as to who is the authority competent to appoint a Kazi. Under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880, it is the State Government that has to appoint a Kazi after consulting the principal Muhammadan residents of such local areas.” 14. Its relevant portion is extracted herein: “20. But the question for consideration is as to who is the authority competent to appoint a Kazi. Under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880, it is the State Government that has to appoint a Kazi after consulting the principal Muhammadan residents of such local areas.” 14. For yet another reason too, the impugned order is liable to be struck down. The voluminous documents produced by the petitioners are not at all considered. Some of them are not even referred to, much less being considered. On the short ground of the non-consideration of the relevant material itself, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 15. The position would be the same whether or not Gulam Mohammed was the Kazi or Nayib Kazi or either of the two and whether or not the petitioner Liyakath is his nephew, because the Kazis Act does not provide for the appointment of Kazis on the hereditary principle. 16. The Kaziship cannot be denied to a party on the ground of his being in the Government service, in the absence of any prohibition in any statute. If it were the intendment of the legislature that a Government servant should not become a Kazi, it would have imposed such a prohibition or restriction. In exercise of its wisdom, the legislature has not provided for such a prohibition. This Court does not substitute its wisdom for the wisdom of the legislature in the matter. 17. The submission urged by Sri Sidhapurkar that no consultation is necessary for the reappointment also does not commend itself to me. The law does not make any distinction between the appointment and reappointment. If some individuals advance their claims for Kaziship during the period between the order of appointment and the order of reappointment, their claims are also required to be considered after consulting the prominent Muslim residents of the area. Therefore I have no hesitation in holding that the process of consultation is required while making the re-appointment of Kazis. 18. The argument that the Government Order dated 7.3.1981 appointing the 4th respondent as the Kazi of Gulbarga and its 314 villages has become final also fails, because the Government vide its order dated 20.1.2003 appointed the petitioner Liyakath as the Kazi of the Afzalpur Taluk with its surrounding villages. 18. The argument that the Government Order dated 7.3.1981 appointing the 4th respondent as the Kazi of Gulbarga and its 314 villages has become final also fails, because the Government vide its order dated 20.1.2003 appointed the petitioner Liyakath as the Kazi of the Afzalpur Taluk with its surrounding villages. Some of the villages earlier allotted to the 4th respondent were withdrawn and given to the petitioner, Liyakath. This order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.4943/2003. The said writ petition and other connected petitions were disposed of by this Court by its order, dated 4.6.2003 quashing the order dated 20.1.2003 and remitting the matter to the 1st respondent for consideration of the claim of the Liyakath – petitioner in W.P.No.81310/09 and Syed Ghousuddin – respondent No.3 in W.P.No.81310/2009. On the remand of the matter, the 1st respondent passed the order, dated 21.10.2005 appointing Sri Syed Ghousuddin as the Kazi of Afzalpur. This order was challenged by Riyazuddin Kazi (the petitioner No.1) and other L.R.s of Rahimuddin in W.P.No.3730/2006 and Liyakath in W.P.No.24971/2005. These two petitions were also disposed of by the common order, dated 5.8.2008 remanding the matter to the 1st respondent for passing the appropriate orders. Pursuant thereto the impugned order is passed. This series of the litigation is indicative of the matter not attaining the finality. Successive litigation has kept the issue of appointment of Kazis for Afzalpur Taluk nebulous. 19. For all the aforesaid reasons, both the petitions are allowed; the impugned order, is quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to complete the process of appointing the Kazis for Afzalpur Taluk in accordance with law within an outer limit of six months from today.