Writ of Quo-Warranto

Law and You > Administrative Law > Writ of Quo-Warranto

There are five major types of writs viz. habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. Each of them has a different meaning and different implications. In this article, we shall discuss the Writ of Quo-Warranto.

Anything that is issued under authority is a writ. Orders, warrants, directions etc. issued under authority are examples of writs. Any person whose fundamental rights are violated can move the High Court (under article 226 of Indian constitution) or the Supreme Court (under article 32) and the court can issue direction or orders or writs. Thus the power to issue writs is primarily a provision made to make available the Right to Constitutional Remedies to every citizen.

In addition to the above, the Constitution also provides for the Parliament to confer on the Supreme Court power to issue writs, for purposes other than those mentioned above. Similarly, High Courts in India are also empowered to issue writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

In India, both the Supreme Court and the High Court have been empowered with Writ Jurisdiction. Further, Parliament by law can extend power to issue writs to any other courts (including local courts) for local limits of the jurisdiction of such courts.

Writ of Quo-Warranto

The word Quo-Warranto literally means “by what warrants?” or “what is your authority”? The Writ of Quo-Warranto is the writ which is issued directing subordinate authorities to show under what authority they are holding the office. If a person has usurped a public office, the Court may direct him not to carry out any activities in the office or may announce the office to be vacant. Thus High Court may issue a writ of quo-warranto if a person holds an office beyond his retirement age.

The Writ of Quo-Warranto cannot be issued to a person working in a private field. This writ is issued to a person in an office, the legality of which is being questioned.

Conditions for issue of thw Writ of Quo-Warranto

  1. The office must be public and it must be created by a statue or by the constitution itself.
  2. The office must be a substantive one and not merely the function or employment of a servant at the will and during the pleasure of another.
  3. There must have been a contravention of the constitution or a statute or statutory instrument, in appointing such person to that office.

Case Laws for Writ of Quo Warranto:

In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 491 case, the Court opined that the writ of quo warranto calls upon the holder of a public office to show to the court under what authority he is holding the office in question. If he is not entitled to the office, the court may restrain him from acting in the office and may also declare the office to be vacant.

In Amarendra v. Nartendra, A.I.R. 1953 Cal.114. case, the Court held that The writ lies in respect of a public office of a substantive character and not a private office such as membership of a school managing committee.

In Mohambaram v. Jayavelu, A.I.R. 1970 Mad.63; Durga Chand v. Administration, AI R 1971 Del.73. cases, the Court opined that an appointment to the office- of a public prosecutor can be quashed through quo warranto if in contravention of relevant statutory rules as it is a substantive public office involving duties of public nature of vital interest to public.

In K. Bheema Raju v. Govt, of A.P., A,I.R. 1981 A.P. case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the appointment of a government pleader as the procedure prescribed in the relevant rules for this purpose had not been followed.

In Jogendra Nation v. Assam, A.I.R, 1982 Gau.25. case, the nomination by the Governor of members to the state legislative council, appointment of a Chief Minister in a state, nominations or elections to municipal bodies, inter alia have been challenged by way of petitions for quo warranto. The Court held that Quo warranto will not be issued if there is an alternative legal remedy provided by the statute. Thus it will not be a proper remedy to challenge the election of a Chief Minister to the House, as the statutes provides for the remedy of an election petition..

In Niranjan Kumar v. University of Bihar, A.I.R. 1973 Pat.85 case, the Court held that the office of the Principal of a private college has been held to be not a public office.

An appointment to a public office cannot be challenged in a collateral proceeding. However, in Haryana v. Haryana Coop. Transport, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 237 case, the Supreme Court held that a person can challenge an award of a labour court under article 226 by challenging the appointment of the presiding officer thereof on the ground that he was not qualified under the law to hold the office. The court ruled that the appointment was not being challenged collaterally in proceedings taken to challenge the award, but directly in substantive proceedings. The court not only quashed the appointment of the presiding officer but also set aside the award.

In University of Mysore v. Govinda A.I.R.1965 S.C.491 (494) case, the Court held that a writ of Quo warranto will issue in respect of an office only if the office is public.

In Niranjan v. Bihar University, A.I.R.1973 Pat.85 (Para.3)  Ramachandran v. Aligiriswani, A.I.R. 1961 Mad.450(455:467) case, the Court held that the writ of quo warranto will not lie in respect of office of a private charitable institution or of a private association. Thus, the managing Committee of a private school even though a small section of the public, viz. the students and guardians are interested in the school, is not an office of a public nature for the purpose of quo warranto.

In Anand Behari v. Ram Sahai” Ramachandran (1916) IKB 595 case, the court held that a public office is one which is created by the constitution or a statute and the duties of which must be such in which public is interested. In this case it was held that the office of speaker of Legislative Assembly is a public office.

In Puranlal v. P.C.Ghosh, A.I.R.1970 Cal.118 case, the Court held that mere declaration that a person is elected to an office or mere appointment to a particular office is not sufficient for the issue of quo warranto unless such person actually accepts such office.

In state of Assam v. Ranga Muhammad, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 903 case, the court found the transfer and posting of two district judges contrary to law, but did not issue quo warranto as it was a case of mere irregularity that did not make the occupation of office wrongful.

For More Articles on Administrative Law Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here