The Practice Of Not Answering Query Regarding Maintainability Of Petition By An Advocate Is Deprecated: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently deprecated the conduct of a practising Advocate who chose not to answer the repeated queries of the Court regarding the maintainability of his petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto and regarding non-impleadment of necessary party

The Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Anil Verma also dismissed his petition challenging the posting and performance of duty of an administrative officer as SDM/SDO at a particular place with a cost of Rs.10,000/-

Facts in brief

It was submitted by the petitioner that Respondent No.4 (an administrative officer) even after being transferred as Dy. Collector, Alirajpur by the State Government, never joined at District Alirajpur and started performing the duty of SDM/SDO, Kanadiya Indore.

Thus, it was urged before the Court that a writ of quo warranto may be issued against respondent No.4 to show under which authority he has working as SDM/SDO, Kanadia, Indore.

It was alleged that SDO/SDM was misusing authority and making fun of common people and publishing those photographs on Instagram. Hence, a writ of quo warranto may be issued.

The State Government argued that the petitioner had not impleaded the concerned officer eo nomine and, therefore, the petition was not maintainable.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the appointment of respondent No.4 had not been called in question, rather, his posting and performance of duty at a particular place namely Kanadia, Indore was called in question.

To this, the Court said:

"This is clearly outside the scope of writ of quo warranto. We may hasten to mention that on more than one occasion the Court enquired from the petitioner, a practicing Advocate as to how a writ of quo warranto is maintainable when the petitioner is not challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 and has not chosen to implead him by name. Sadly, the petitioner decided to avoid the said question repeatedly asked."

Further, the Court observed that for issuance of a writ of quo warranto, the locus standi is insignificant but to maintain a regular writ petition, the petitioner must show that he is a "person aggrieved" and that the petition for issuance of quo warranto by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be public interest litigation.

Lastly, noting that the petition was filed to either settle a personal score or gain publicity, the court deprecated such practice and deemed it proper to dismiss the petition with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand). 

Case title - Arun Singh Chouhan v. State of MP & Ors. 

Click here To Download Order

Read Order