Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Advocates
Acts
  • Section 19(23) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Advocates
Acts
  • Section 19(23) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Mahendra Singh filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking a writ of quo warranto to remove respondent No. 6 from the post of Manager (Prabandhak), Prathamik Vanopaj Sahkari Samiti, Village Nunera, Katghora. [1]

Respondent No. 6 had been appointed by respondent No. 3 under Section 19(23) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, by order dated 30 August 2012. [2] The order was delivered on 26 June 2024. [3]

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a writ of quo warranto could be issued on the allegation that respondent No. 6 lacked the requisite qualifications for the managerial post. [4]
  2. Whether the post of Prabandhak, Prathamik Vanopaj Sahkari Samiti was a public office or statutory post capable of being challenged through quo warranto. [5][6][7]

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Respondent No. 6 lacked the requisite qualifications for appointment as Manager of the Prathamik Vanopaj Sahkari Samiti and therefore was not entitled to hold the post. [4]
  • The case was suitable for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. [4]

Respondents' Arguments

  • The matter was not one in which a writ of quo warranto could be issued. [8]
  • The petitioner had himself previously worked on the post, as shown by the order dated 9 March 2010. [8]

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
The University Of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao and another A writ of quo warranto requires the challenged office to be a public office held by a usurper without legal authority. The Court relied on this principle to examine whether the post was a public office and whether respondent No. 6 lacked legal authority to hold it. [9][10][11]
High Court of Gujarat and another v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and others It was cited as stating a similar proposition concerning a writ of quo warranto. The Court treated it as supporting the governing principles applicable to quo warranto proceedings. [12]
R.K. Jain v. Union of India It was cited as stating a similar proposition concerning a writ of quo warranto. The Court treated it as supporting the governing principles applicable to quo warranto proceedings. [12]
Centre for PIL and another v. Union of India and another A writ of quo warranto enables judicial control of appointments to public offices contrary to statutory provisions and prevents continued exercise of unlawful authority. The Court used this principle in assessing whether respondent No. 6 was exercising unlawful authority. [13][14][15]
Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and others Quo warranto lies where an appointment contravenes statutory provisions; the relevant test is whether the office-holder is authorised by law to hold the office. The Court held that the petitioner had to establish that respondent No. 6's appointment violated statutory rules and that he lacked eligibility. [6]

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court stated that quo warranto is a discretionary remedy. It may be granted where appointment to a public office violates statutory provisions or statutory eligibility requirements. [5]

The cited authorities establish that the applicant must show that the office is a public office and that the incumbent holds it without legal authority. The remedy is intended to prevent unlawful exercise of authority and to control appointments made contrary to law. [10][14][15][6]

The Court found that respondent No. 3 appointed respondent No. 6 as Manager under Section 19(23) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, by order dated 30 August 2012. [2]

It then determined that the post of Prabandhak, Prathamik Vanopaj Sahkari Samiti was a non-statutory post under the 1960 Act and was not an independent substantive public office. The Court also noted that the petitioner had previously held the same post, indicating that the dispute was in substance a service dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 6. [7]

Because the essential conditions for issuing quo warranto were not satisfied, the Court concluded that the writ could not be issued and that the petition was not maintainable. [16]

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable because the challenged position was a non-statutory post and not an independent substantive public office; the dispute was treated as a service dispute rather than a proper quo warranto proceeding. [16]

The direct effect was that respondent No. 6 remained unaffected by the requested writ. The opinion discusses no broader implications or new precedent beyond applying established principles governing quo warranto.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Sheikh Tasavvar v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

    1

    (WPS No. 1255 of 2013)

    NAFR

    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

    WPS No. 1255 of 2013

    Mahendra Singh S/o Tapeshwar Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Vill Nunera, Tah Pali, Dist Korba, Cg, Chhattisgarh

    ---- Petitioner Versus

    1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors S/o Through Secretary Of Forest Deptt, New Raipur, Mantralaya, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh

    2. Divisional Forest Officer Vanmandal Katghora, District :

    Korba, Chhattisgarh

    3. Prabandh Sanchalak Jila Vanopaj Sahakari Union Maryadit Katghora Vanmandal Katghora, District :

    Korba, Chhattisgarh

    4. Parichetra Adhikari Pali Parichetra, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

    5. Sarpanch Village Panchayat Nunera, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

    6. Shiv Narayan Maravi S/o Ramlal R/o Vill Nunera, Tah Pali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

    ---- Respondents

    (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent Nos.3&4 :- Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate For Respondent No.6 :- Mr.Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate

    SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

    26.06 .2024

    1. In this writ petition, the petitioner herein has in fact sought a writ of quo warranto for ousting respondent No.6 from working on the post of Prabandhak (Manager), Prathamik Vanopaj Sahkari Samiti, at Village Nunera, Katghora.

    2

    2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6 is not having the requisite qualifications to be appointed on the post of Manager of the Prathamik Vanopaj Sahkari Samiti, Nunera and, therefore, he is not entitled to work on that post, and as such, it is a fit case where the writ of quo warranto can be issued.

    3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that it is not a case where a writ of quo warranto can be issued and, in fact, the petitioner himself was earlier working on that post, which is apparent from order dated 09.03.2010 (Annexure P/1).

    4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection.

    5. It is well settled that issuance of writ of quo warranto is a discretionary remedy, authority of a person to hold a public office can be questioned inter alia in the event the appointment is violative of statutory provision and unquestionably a writ of quo warranto can be issued inter alia when the appointment is contrary to statutory rules and lacks eligibility criteria.

    3

    6. Way back in the year 1963, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of The University Of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao and another1while dealing with the nature of writ of quo warranto has held in no uncertain terms that before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the Court that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper without legal authority by observing as under: -

    "7. ... Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive public office, or franchise, or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty; if the enquiry leads to the finding that the holder of the office has no valid title to it, the issue of the writ of quo warranto ousts him from that office. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory provisions; it also protects a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he may have a right. It would thus be seen that if these proceedings are adopted subject to the conditions recognised in that behalf, they tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office, in some cases, persons not entitled to public office may be allowed to occupy them and to continue to hold them as a result of the connivance of the executive or with its active help, and in such cases, if the jurisdiction of the courts

    1 AIR 1 965 SC 491 : (1 964) 4 SCR 575

    4

    to issue writ of quo warranto is properly invoked, the usurper can be ousted and the person entitled to the post allowed to occupy it. It is thus clear that before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the court, inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper without legal authority, and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the said alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not."

    7. Similarly, in the matters of High Court of Gujarat and another v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and others2and R.K. Jain v. Union of India3similar proposition of law has been propounded with regard to writ of quo warranto.

    8. In the matter of Centre for PIL and another v. Union of India and another4, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down the requisites and object of issuance of writ of quo warranto. Paragraph 51 of the report states as under:-

    "51. The procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory provisions. Before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto he must satisfy the court inter alia that the office in question is a public office and it is held by a person without legal authority and that leads to

    2 (2 003) 4 SCC 712

    3 (1993 ) 4 SCC 119 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1128 : (1993 ) 25 ATC 464

    4 (2011) 4 SCC 1

    5

    the inquiry as to whether the appointment of the said person has been in accordance with law or not. A writ of quo warranto is issued to prevent a continued exercise of unlawful authority."

    9. Similarly, in the matter of Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and others5, it has been held that writ of quo warranto lies when appointment is made contrary to statutory provisions and laid down the test to issue a writ of quo warranto to see whether person holding the office is authorised to hold the same as per law. Thus, the petitioner seeking issuance of writ of quo warranto has to satisfy that the appointment of respondent No.6 is contrary to statutory rules and he lacks eligibility.

    10. In the case at hand, respondent No.3/Prabandh Sanchalak, Jila Vanopaj Sahakari Union Maryadit, Katghora, Vanmandal Katghora, in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(23) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 has appointed respondent No.6 on the post of Manager, Prathamik Vanopaj Sahkari Samiti, Nunera vide order dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure P/3), against which this petition has been preferred seeking writ of quo warranto.

    11. It is relevant to mention here that the post of

    5 (2013) 1 SCC 5 01

    6

    Prabandhak, Prathamik Vanopaj Sahkari Samiti is only a non-statutory post under the Act of 1960 and the said post is also not an independent substantive public office and, further, the petitioner himself was holding the said post, which is apparent from order dated 09.03.2010 (Annexure P/1), as such, he is aggrieved by appointment of respondent No.6 on the post of Prabandhak, Prathamik Vanopaj Sahkari Samiti, Nunera.

    12. In that view of the matter, no writ of quo warranto can be issued in this matter, more particularly, when the present dispute relates to service dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.6. As such, this writ petition being not maintainable is liable to and is accordingly dismissed.

    Sd/-

    (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

    @d!t!

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Sheikh Tasavvar v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.
    (Jun 26, 2024)