The Madhya Pradesh High Court has in the judgment titled Arun Singh Chauhan v. the State of MP & Ors. has chosen to clearly deprecate the conduct of a practicing advocate who chose not to answer the repeated queries of the Court pertaining to the maintainability of his petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto and regarding the non-impleadment of a necessary party. It must be mentioned here that the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Anil Verma also dismissed his petition challenging the posting and performance of duty of an administrative officer as SDM/SDO at a particular place with a cost of Rs 10,000/-.
It is stated right at the outset in this notable judgment regarding the law laid down that,
“Article 226 of the Constitution – Writ of Quo Warranto - Can be issued to test the validity of appointment to a public office. The said writ cannot be issued to examine the posting or working of an officer to particular place.
Writ of Quo Warranto – Necessary party - The person against whom writ is prayed for is a necessary party.
Public Interest Litigation – Conduct of petitioner - A practising Advocate has chosen not to answer the repeated queries regarding maintainability of a petition seeking issuance of writ of quo warranto and regarding non impleadment of necessary party. The practise deprecated.
Exemplary cost – Since writ of Quo Warranto was not maintainable and there is no other public interest element involved, the petition was dismissed with exemplary cost.
Writ of Quo Warranto – Can be issued to question an appointment on the substantive post. The working of an officer on officiating posting or a particular station cannot be subject matter of the petition for issuance of writ of Quo Warranto.”
Factual Matrix
The petitioner, a practicing Advocate has filed this Public Interest Litigation. Petitioner is shattered by that an officer of the different district is how liable to become an SDO/SDM of the different district as the matter of fact is that Respondent No.4 was an Administrative Officer of District Dhar on the post of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer, NHDC Kukshi, District Dhar and then he was transferred to District Alirajpur on the post of Dy. Collector but during both the posting he was not there and during above both the postings he was performing his duty and taking action from last one and half year in district Indore on the post of SDO/SDM of various subdivision of district Indore, even he is not the official of district Indore, which is totally illegal and unlawful as the appointment of Respondent no. 4 in Indore district on the post of SDO/SDM is not in accordance of the law. And on remaining on the same post as SDO/SDM he defamed common people by posting their punishing image on personal handled Instagram page.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Apex Court in B.R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2001 SC 3435 opined that a person against whom the writ of quo warranto is prayed for is a necessary party.
The Court in the instant case made a reiterated HALSBURY’S LAWS OF ENGLAND, wherein it was observed that,
“Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceedings afford a judicial inquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office. If the finding is that the holder of the office has no valid title to it, the issue of the writ of quo warranto ousts him from that office. It confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory provision; it also protects a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he may have a right.
It would thus be seen that these proceedings are subject to the condition recognized in that behalf, they tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office; in some cases, persons not entitled to public office may be allowed to occupy them and continue to hold them as a result of the convenience of the executive or with its active help, and in such cases, if the jurisdiction of the courts to issue a writ of quo warranto is properly invoked, the usurper can be ousted and the persons entitled to the post allowed to occupy it.
It is thus clear that before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the court, inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper without legal authority, and that necessarily leads to the inquiry as to whether the appointment of the said alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not.” [See HALSBURY;’S LAWS OF ENGLAND, 3rd Edn.; Vol. II. p.145].
The Court then referred to a Privy Council decision,
"In a proceeding of a writ of quo warranto to test the validity of appointment to a public office, the applicant does not seek to enforce any right of his as such, nor does he complain of non-performance of any duty towards him. What is in question is the right of the non-applicant to hold the office. Hence, it is not necessary in such a case that the applicant must have some personal interest in the matter.” [See R. Speyer,(1916) 1 KB 595]
Furthermore, the Bench then states in para 10 that,
“It is trite that a writ of quo warranto can be issued against a person and related to a post which he is substantively holding. It is relevant to examine the legal journey on this aspect.”
With respect to the instant case, the Court noted that the petitioner has not challenged the appointment of respondent No.4. The posting and working of respondent No.4 cannot be a reason for issuing the writ of quo warranto.
The Court further noted that,
“For issuance of writ of quo warranto the locus standi is insignificant but to maintain a regular writ petition, the petitioner must show that he is a “person aggrieved”. This petition for issuance of quo warranto by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be a public interest litigation. In the matter of Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association and others Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 731 (I) the Apex court held that “a petition praying for a writ of quo warranto being in the nature of public interest litigation, it is not maintainable at the instance of a person who is not unbiased. The proceedings of quo warranto is not meant to settle personal scores…..”. In the same judgment, the Supreme Court opined that if petition for issuance of writ of quo warranto is filed with impropriety or mala-fide intentions, exemplary cost should be imposed.”
The Court thus held that the petition for writ of quo warranto is not maintainable.
"It appears that a petition is filed to either settle a personal score or gain publicity. We deprecate such practice and deem it proper to dismiss the petition with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand)."
Case Details
Case Name: Arun Singh Chauhan v. State of MP & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. No. 11298/2021
Bench: Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Anil Verma
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :