A writ of quo warranto can be issued only when a public office is unlawfully held, but the petitioner failed to establish disqualification of the 5th respondent, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

ORDER :

The above Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto against the 5^th respondent calling upon him to quit the office of Full Additional Charge of Commissioner, Endowments, appointed in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.37 dated 24.01.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent, since the appointment was made contrary to Articles 14, 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner, who claims to be a staunch devotee of Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy, filed the above writ petition. Averments, in the affidavit, in brief, are that the 5^th respondent joined as Assistant Commissioner in the Endowments Department in the year 2000 and is presently working as Additional Commissioner-II. He served as the Executive Officer of Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple from 04.07.2007 to 01.09.2008 and from 02.03.2013 to 18.08.2019. He also worked as the Executive Officer of Sri MANSAS Trust, Vizianagaram for about 4 years in different points of time. During his tenure, the 5^th respondent committed several irregularities. The 4^th respondent surrendered him to the Government vide proceedings No.E1/COE15021/152/2019/2021 dated 29.06.2021. Later, a 3-men committee is appointed to inquire into the illegalities. The 3-men committee submitted a report dated 16.07.2021 to the Commissioner pointing out irregularities/illegalities committed by the 5^th respondent. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.494 Revenue (VIG.IV) Department dated 06.08.2021 suspending the 5^th respondent, pending enquiry. The 5^th respondent filed W.P.No.18251 of 2021. An interim suspension of the suspension proceedings on 06.01.2022 was granted. The 5^th respondent was reinstated as Additional Commissioner-II of the Endowments Department. The 1^st respondent issued U.O.Note No.2688771/SC.A/A1/2025, dated 21.01.2025 requesting the 2^nd respondent to place the 5^th respondent as in charge to the post of Commissioner, Endowments until further orders. Later, by way of amendment the appointment of the 5^th respondent as Commissioner, Endowments, full additional charge, was assailed.

3. Heard Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4 & 6 and Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for 5^th respondent.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4 & 6 and Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for 5^th respondent reported no counter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 5^th respondent who was suspended for committing irregularities and illegalities, in pursuance of the 3-men committee report dated 16.07.2021, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.18241 of 2021 by not disclosing facts. Taking advantage of the interim order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the 5^th respondent managed the respondents 1 to 3 and was reinstated as Additional Commissioner-II. The reinstatement of the 5^th respondent as Additional Commissioner-II itself is an abuse of process and further placing the 5^th respondent, as an incharge, Commissioner, Endowment is nothing but perpetuating illegality.

6. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4 & 6 and Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for 5^th respondent would contend that the interim order granted in W.P.No.18251 of 2021 dated 06.01.2022 is nothing to with the 5^th respondent appointment as incharge of the post of Commissioner, Endowments. The 5^th respondent was appointed as Additional Commissioner-II by G.O.Rt.No.186 dated 21.03.2022 and since then he has been discharging the duties. They would also submit that the petitioner is qualified to be appointed. Learned counsel would point out that the writ petitioner failed to point out any disqualification of 5^th respondent to be appointed as an incharge to the post of the Commissioner, Endowments and would submit the writ of quo warranto itself is not maintainable. They would also submit that the petitioner has no locus to