Jurisdiction Of Court While Issuing Writ Of 'Quo Warranto' Limited To Cases Where Person Holding Public Office Is Ineligible: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto is limited to cases where the person holding public office did not meet with the eligibility criteria or when the appointment was contrary to the statutory rules. The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramoniam Prasad also noted that the Court cannot sit...
The Delhi High Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto is limited to cases where the person holding public office did not meet with the eligibility criteria or when the appointment was contrary to the statutory rules.
The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramoniam Prasad also noted that the Court cannot sit in judgement over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of person to be appointed so long as the person chosen is eligible for such appointment.
The case pertained to the constitution of the Expert Appraisal Committee (Thermal Power and Coal Mining Projects). The Petitioner, a retired Indian Forest Services officer and founder of the "Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan", filed the petition seeking the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against Respondents, stating their holding EAC office is a violation of citizens' right to clean environment under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner stated that there existed opacity in the appointment of the Chairperson of the EAC as well as three non-official members of the EAC. He underlined that the appointed members were supposed to be "experts" as defined under the EIA notification (which stipulated the criteria for EAC members) and therefore, their appointment fell outside the purview of the statutory requirements. He stated that a total of nine "non-officials" were appointed, along with six "officials" despite there being no distinction between "officials" and "non-officials".
He submitted that as per the EIA notification, the members of the EAC must comprise of experts and professionals possessing certain educational qualifications and having relevant experience in the listed fields. However, in the event that experts are not available, professionals with sufficient experience may be considered. The petitioner cited the judgement of Utkarsh Mandal v. Union of India, to submit that institutionally-biased appointments were an obvious and direct conflict of interest, and that the credibility of the EAC would come into question if a person who has a direct interest in the promotion of the mining industry is appointed.
Per contra, the counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that the appointment of a "non-official" member in the EAC was not contrary to the EIA notification as the sole distinction between an "official" and "non-official" member was that an "official" member drew their salary from the government departments, unlike the "non-official" members. He stated that the appointment of the members was reliant upon the need for individuals with diverse expertise in order for the EIA Report to be as comprehensive and holistic as possible. He also submitted that the appointed members of the EAC were competent and possessed vast experience in the relevant sector, had been exposed to the best practices in India as well as abroad and had no direct interest in the subject matter.
Here, the court noted that–
"At the outset, it is pertinent to note that while admitting PILs, the Court must strike a balance between two conflicting interests – (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others, and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and that justifiable executive actions are not assailed for oblique motives, as the same has the potential of hindering and demoralising persons who may accept appointments pertaining to discharge of public duty. In such cases, the Court must carefully deal with all the factors that govern a PIL, such as locus standi of the Petitioner, prima facie correctness of the information provided by the Petitioner, etc. The discretion that is granted to the Court for admitting such PILs is limited."
It further opined that as per set judicial precedents, the Court could not sit in judgement over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of person to be appointed so long as the person chosen possessed the prescribed qualification and was otherwise eligible for appointment. Additionally, the burden of establishing mala fides was very heavy on the person who alleged it. It stated that the jurisdiction of the High Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto was limited and could only be issued when the person holding public office lacked the eligibility criteria or when the appointment was contrary to the statutory rules.
Further, the court held that the reliance of the Petitioner on the judgement of Utkarsh Mandal v. Union of India did not come to the aid of the Petitioner as the said judgement was regarding the evident abuse of power exhibited by the members of the EAC. It was not a case where the qualifications of the members of the EAC were under challenge.
In view of the above observations, the Court dismissed the PIL.
CASE TITLE: MANOJ MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 720