Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.23 seconds)Article 243O in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 173 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Nawabkhan Abbaskhan vs The State Of Gujarat on 19 February, 1974
In the
supplementing judgment by one of us Dipak Misra, J. (as His
Lordship then was), the settled legal position expounded in B.R.
Kapur (supra), University of Mysore (supra), High Court of
Gujarat (supra), Centre for PIL Vs. Union of India19 has been
recapitulated in paragraphs 29 to 33 of the reported decision.
K. Venkatachalam vs A. Swamickan And Anr on 26 April, 1999
In Kurapati Maria Das Vs. Ambedkar Seva Samajan6 the
Court distinguished the decision in K. Venkatachalam (supra)
being on the facts of that case and reversed the judgment of the
High Court under challenge, whereby a writ of quo warranto was
issued against the appellant therein. The reason for doing so may
have some bearing on the matter in issue as in that case, there
was dispute about the caste status of the appellant. The Court
6 (2009) 7 SCC 387
40
opined that the issue regarding the caste status can be decided
only by the Competent Authority under the relevant enactment
and not by the High Court. The Court accepted the contention of
the appellant that continuance of the post of Chairperson
depended directly on his election, firstly, as a ward member and
secondly as the Chairperson, which election was available only to
the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. In paragraph 32 of
the reported decision, the Court while accepting the contention of
the appellant noted that the question of caste and his election are
so inextricably connected that they cannot be separated and
therefore, when the writ petitioners challenged the continuation of
the appellant on the ground of his not belonging to a particular
caste what they actually challenged was the validity of the election
of appellant though, apparently, the petition was for a writ of quo
warranto.
Kurapati Maria Das vs M/S. Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samajan & Ors on 17 April, 2009
In Kurapati Maria Das Vs. Ambedkar Seva Samajan6 the
Court distinguished the decision in K. Venkatachalam (supra)
being on the facts of that case and reversed the judgment of the
High Court under challenge, whereby a writ of quo warranto was
issued against the appellant therein. The reason for doing so may
have some bearing on the matter in issue as in that case, there
was dispute about the caste status of the appellant. The Court
6 (2009) 7 SCC 387
40
opined that the issue regarding the caste status can be decided
only by the Competent Authority under the relevant enactment
and not by the High Court. The Court accepted the contention of
the appellant that continuance of the post of Chairperson
depended directly on his election, firstly, as a ward member and
secondly as the Chairperson, which election was available only to
the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. In paragraph 32 of
the reported decision, the Court while accepting the contention of
the appellant noted that the question of caste and his election are
so inextricably connected that they cannot be separated and
therefore, when the writ petitioners challenged the continuation of
the appellant on the ground of his not belonging to a particular
caste what they actually challenged was the validity of the election
of appellant though, apparently, the petition was for a writ of quo
warranto.
Arun Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 7 March, 2006
In the case of Arun Singh alias Arun Kr. Singh Vs. State
of Bihar and Others7, this Court over turned the decision of the
High Court issuing a writ of quo warranto, on the ground that it
was unclear from the orders passed by the Superintendence of
Police or the District Magistrate, or for that matter, the State
Election Commissioner, suggestive of the fact that the appellant
therein was held to have committed any misconduct within the
meaning of the Service Rules. In paragraph 13, the Court observed
thus:
High Court Of Gujarat & Anr vs Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors on 10 March, 2003
In the case of High Court of Gujarat and Anr. Vs. Gujarat
Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and Ors.11 (supra) in a concurring
judgment S.B. Sinha, J. (as His Lordship then was) noted that the
High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this
nature is required to determine at the outset as to whether a case
has been made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ of
quo warranto. However, the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue
a writ of quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ,
the Court merely makes a public declaration but will not consider
the respective impact of the candidates or other factors which may
be relevant for issuance of a writ of certiorari.
The Mor Modern Cooperative Transport ... vs Financial Commissioner And Secretary ... on 9 July, 2002
In Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors.16, the
Court noted that a writ of quo warranto will lie when the
appointment is made contrary to the statutory provisions as held
in the case of Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. (supra)
Further, relying on the decision in the cases of B. Srinivasa
Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage
Board Employees Asson.17 and Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar
Prasad Mahto18, wherein the legal position has been restated that
the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is
a limited one which can only be issued if the appointment is
15 (1994) 6 SCC 241
16 (2013) 1 SCC 501
17 (2006) 11 SCC 731
18 (2010) 9 SCC 655
49
contrary to the statutory rules and the Court has to satisfy itself
that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. In that
case, the Court after analysing the factual matrix found, as of fact,
that there was non-compliance of sub-Section (5) of Section 85 of
the Electricity Act, 2003, in the matter of appointment of the
incumbent to the post of Chairperson of the Commission for which
it became necessary to issue a writ of quo warranto.
R.K. Jain vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 May, 1993
The Court also took notice
of the exposition in R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India13. The Court
noted that with a view to find out as to whether a case has been
made out for issuance of quo warranto, the only question which
11 (2003) 4 SCC 712
12 (2002) 6 SCC 269
13 (1993) 4 SCC 119
47
was required to be considered was as to whether the incumbent
fulfilled the qualifications laid down under the statutory provisions
or not. This is the limited scope of inquiry. Applying the underlying
principle, the Court ought not to enquire into the merits of the
claim or the defence or explanation offered by the appellant
regarding the manner of issuance of Income and Caste Certificate
by the jurisdictional Authority or any matter related thereto which
may be matter in issue for scrutiny concerning the validity of the
Caste Certificate issued by the jurisdictional statutory authority
constituted under the State Act of 1990 and the rules framed
thereunder. That inquiry may require examination of all factual
aspects threadbare including the legality of the stand taken by the
appellant herein.