“Writ Of Quo Warranto Meant To Prevent Abuse Of Public Offices”: Rajasthan High Court Removes Ineligible Nagar Parishad Executive Officer

The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the very purpose of seeking a writ of quo warranto is to prevent the abuse or usurpation of public offices and to ensure that those who hold such positions do so legitimately and within the bounds of the law.

The observation was made by Justice Sameer Jain while setting aside the Respondent's appointment, belonging to Executive Officer-III category, as the Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad of Chomu town near Jaipur.

The bench held that as per the Rajasthan Municipal Service (Administrative and Technical) Rules 1963, only a person belonging to the category of a Commissioner could be appointed as the Executive Officer of any Municipal Council.

The petition was filed by the Chairman of the Nagar Parishad, contending that after declaration of Nagar Palika Chomu as a 'Nagar Parishad', the respondent was transferred as the Executive Officer. Against this order, a representation was made by the father of the petitioner, who was an ex-member of the State's Legislative Assembly, alleging the appointment to be illegal. Based on this representation, the department of Local Self Government made the respondent the APO, however, the very next day, the posting as APO was cancelled and the respondent continued to serve as an Executive Officer. It was against this order that the writ of quo warranto was filed.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent contended that the petition was politically charged since the father of the petitioner wanted to get some of his relatives appointed as the Executive Officer. It was further put forth that the respondent had initiated enquiry against the petitioner for being involved in allotting certain forged pattas, hence the petition was filed maliciously. The counsel further argued that the appointment of the respondent as Executive Officer was on a temporary basis in light of administrative exigency of limited staff due to changed status of Nagar Palika.

The Court formulated three issued to be answered: 1) Whether the petitioner had locus standi to file the writ of quo warranto? 2) Whether the petitioner approached the case with unclean hands? 3) Whether the respondent was competent to be the Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad?

1. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to file the writ of quo warranto?

The Court referred to a division bench case of Rajasthan HC, Officer KV Agarwal v State of Rajasthan which held that a writ of quo warranto in service matters was well maintained by a citizen who stands in the position of a relater. The citizen might not have any special or personal interest but the real test was to see whether the person holding the public office was authorized for the same or not.

In light of this case, the Court held that the fact that the petitioner was a bonafide resident of Chomu and an elected chairman of the Nagar Parishad, automatically qualified him to be a relater who could claim the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against a perceived injustice, in the larger public interest, without having any special/personal interest. The Court further ruled that the very purpose of a writ of quo warranto was to prevent the abuse of public offices and the implications of a perceived irregular appointment were far reaching and wide.

2. Whether the petitioner approached the case with unclean hands?

The Court rejected the argument that was put forth by the respondent alleging malic on part of the petitioner in filing the writ. The Court held that the representation was filed by the father of the petitioner almost immediately after the appointment of the respondent. Such promptness precluded the underlining plausibility of malice.

The Court further referred to the Supreme Court case of Dr. Kashinath G. Jalmi and Anr. vs. The Speaker and Ors. in which it was held that a writ in the nature of class action alleging usurpation of public office was maintainable, as long as the alleged illegality continued, and factors such as delay, motive and conduct of petitioner would not act as a bar per se.

In this background, the Court held that mere initiation of inquiry by the respondent against the petitioner could not be accepted as a ground to negate a challenge raised against eligibility of an officer on a public post.

3. Whether the respondent was competent to be the Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad?

On this question, the Court highlighted that as per the Rules, to be appointed as an administrative officer in the Municipal Council of Chomu, the officer should have been at the rank of a Commissioner which the respondent was not.

The Court further referred to the case of Shrawan Ram and Ors. v State of Rajasthan and Ors. in which it was held that even in emergency situations, handing over the charge on an administrative post to a person other than to a Commissioner could happen only for a period of not exceeding 15 days.

Hence, the Court held that being an Executive Officer-III, the respondent could not be permitted to hold office as an Executive Officer of Municipal Council of Chomu. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

Title: Vishnu Kumar Saini v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 180

Click Here To Read/Download Order