INTRODUCTION

Quo Warranto means by what warrant or authority, the writ of Quo Warranto is a judicial order which is issued by the Supreme Court or a high court by any person who occupies a user’s an independent public office of franchise or liberty and is ours to show by what right he claims it so that the title to the office franchise or liberty may be settled and any unauthorised person shall be ousted.
The writ of Quo Warranto is observed to be a method of judicial control as the proceedings practically review the actions of the administrative authority which appointed the person. Also, by the use of this administration is tuned by removing inefficient and unqualified personnel and impostors from public office. However, it is also true that this writ acts as a protection to a citizen from being deprived of a public officer to which he has a right earlier.

CONDITIONS FOR TE GROUND OF QUO WARRANTO

The office must be a public office

In the case of Anand Bihari versus Ram Sahai, the court was of the view that a public office is an office in which its creation is provided by the statute or constitution, and its duties is that which involves public interest. This case held that the office of the legislative assembly speaker is a public office.

In the case of G.D. Karkere v. Tl shiv.AIR 1952N.AG 330, the office of advocate general is a public office.

In the case of Shiam Sunder was a State of Punjab AIR 1958 Punjab 128, the Court held that members of a muncipal board or office of a university official are public offices.

In the case of Amarindra, Chandra v. Narendra Kumar Basu AR1953C. AL114, it was held that the writ of Quo Warranto would not be issued against a managing committee of a private school.

In the case of Jamalpur Arya Samaj v. D. Ram Iyer AIR 1954 Pat 297, it was held that the writ of Quo Warranto into could not be issued against the member of the working committee of Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabha because these are private offices and are not created by the law.

The Public office must be substantive in nature

The writ of Quo Warranto can be applied against an office which is a substantive office with a permanent character and is not terminable at will. The words substantive eludes to office of an independent title. Thus, Quo Warranto cannot be granted to an office which is held at the pleasure of the state even if it is permanent in nature.
The official must be an independent official that is to say that such officials shall not merely discharge functions of a deputy or servant at the pleasure of another officer.

The person must be actual possession of the office
For the writ of Quo Warranto, it is necessary that the person must be in actual possession of the office as mere declaration that a person is elected or appointed to a particular office is not sufficient to grant the writ of Quo Warranto. Quo Warranto cannot be issued against a person who has not accepted the actual Possession of the office.

The office must be held in contravention of law

For the purpose of the writ of Quo Warranto, there must exist a clear violation of law in the appointment of a person to a public office near irregular is not sufficient for the issuance of the writ of Quo Warranto. In the case of State of Assam v. Ranga Muhammad AIR 1967 SC, the court observed that the transfer and posting of two district Judges was contrary to law, but it did notlead to issuance of writ of Quo Warranto, as such transfer was a case of mere irregularity that did not make the occupation of the officer wrongful.
It should be noted that the writ of Quo Warranto can be assured even when a person validly occupies an office but acquires a disqualification later on.

LOCUS STANDI OF THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

The writ of Quo Warranto is not dependent on the proposition that it can only be issued on the petition of a person whose rights are adversely affected. A writ of Quo Warranto is also maintainable at the instance of any person whether or not he is personally aggrieved or interested in the matter. Although it must be noted that such person who has issued a petition for the writ of Quo Warranto, though must not be a man of straw set up by another person. For example, in order to challenge a municipal office, the person must at least be resident of the area where the municipality governs.
The writ of Quo Warranto being a writ of extraordinary remedy, is also a disorderly remedy. The writ of Quo Warranto can be refused on the ground of unreasonable delay. So when a person has held office for a long time without challenge, the writ of Quo Warranto may be refused.
In the case of K Bhima Raju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1981AP24, the court observed that matters involving fundamental right to a public office and violation of a legal procedure to be adopted in the matter of appointments to a public office the delay should not result into a deterrence of the court in granting the relief and rendering justice as the usurper’s continuance in office give course of action each day and every hour till he is arrested.
Usually acquaintance is no ground for refusing the remedy of the writ of governance in cases pertaining to public office appointments.
In the case of V.D. Deshpande v. State of Hyderabad, it was observed that a writ of Quo Warranto can also be refused if there is an alternative remedy, which is adequate to the issue at hand. In this case, the court refused the writ of quo warranto against members of legislature who had become disqualified since they held offices of profit as article 192. The constitution provided an adequate remedy.
It shall also be noted that in the case of State of Haryana v. Haryana Corporation Transport Limited, the Supreme Court issued the writ of Quo Warranto against appointment of a presiding officer of a labour code on the ground that the officer did not possess the described qualifications stating that the remedy provided under Section 9(1) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot stop the high court from exercising its jurisdiction to issue the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ of Quo Warranto is refused in cases where issue of such a writ of Quo Warranto would be futile. This was observed in the case of P.L. Lakhanpal v. Chief Justice of India AIR 1975 DEL 66, which the Delhi high court refused the writ of Quo Warranto against the former chief justice of India and in this case, Justice Ray on the ground that on the resignation of tree senior judges, Justice Ray becomes the senior most and therefore can be reappointed despite Article were 124(2) of the Constitution of India which embodies the Seniority rule. The court was also of the view that the motive of appointing authority is not relevant for grant of the rate of co warren two.
With regards to the issuance of the writ of Quo Warranto, the court will at the outset determine whether a case for the issuance writ of Quo Warranto is made or not. The jurisdiction of such court in issuing a case of writ of Quo Warranto can also be exercised only when the appointment is contrary to statutory rules. A court cannot consider the respective impact of the candidates and other factors while is showing the writ of co warranto.

CONCUSION

To summarize, Articles 32 and 226 protect the basic rights guaranteed in Part III of the Indian Constitution. These Articles prohibit both the legislative and executive branches from violating the people’s constitutionally protected rights. The independent judiciary has been entrusted with interpreting the Constitution and enforcing the right to constitutional remedies via writs. The writ of quo warranto serves as a scanner to determine the legality of holders of substantive public posts.
Public offices are critical to the day-to-day and overall seamless operation of the nation. Having unqualified persons in these critical positions is a big worry. Quo warranto prevents nepotism, corruption, and irregularities by allowing applications to remove unqualified individuals from
these vital posts. Despite its colonial origins, the writ of quo warranto remains vital and relevant, particularly in terms of safeguarding the sanctity of public positions and elections in India.The writ of quo warranto has a very specific target but its rules of locus standi are considerably relaxed compared to other writs. As we have discussed above, the writ of quo warranto can only be issued against an office that is independent, public, and substantive. The writ of quo warranto, moreover, gives the judiciary a weapon to control the Executive from making appointments to public office against law and protecta citizen from being deprived of public office to which he has a right