The court has the discretion to grant or refuse a writ in the nature of quo warranto, and it will consider factors such as the conduct and motives of the applicant, whether the relief sought could have been obtained through an alternative remedy, and whether granting the writ would be vexatious or futile.

Untwalia, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this application in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ in the nature of quo warranto against the respondent who is holding --and, according to the petitioners, illegally -- the office of the Chairman of the Arrah municipality. The petitioners claim to be the voters of the various wards of the said municipality. In an election held on the 28th of March, 1959, commissioners of the municipality were elected.

The commissioners, at their first meeting held on the 12th of September, 1959, elected Mahanth Mahadevananda Giri, the respondent, who was admittedly not one of the commissioners, to be the chairman of the Board. In that election, Satrunjay Prasad Singh, one of the elected commissioners was also a candidate for the office of the chairman but he was defeated and the respondent secured the majority of votes.

2. On the 25th and 26th of September, 1959, Satrunjay Prasad Singh, the defeated candidate tor the office of the chairman, as also one Shri Bhagwan Singh, another elected commissioner of Arrah municipality, filed two separate election petitions in the court of the Election Commissioner, Shahabad, at Arrah, under the Bihar Municipal Elections and Election Petitions Rules, hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules, challenging the election of the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that he was not entitled to be elected as chairman of the municipality because at the time when the election tool place, he was neither an elected commissioner of the municipality not did he possess the other requisite qualifications as required by Sub-section (1) of Sec.20 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act.

Both the petitions were heard together by the learned District Judge of Shahabad in his capacity as the Municipal Election Commissioner and were dismissed by his order dated the 7th of March, I960, under Rule 68, because of a fatal defect in them in that the provisions of Rule 65(2) (a) of the Rules were not complied with. The Election Commissioner, in regard to the main question mooted before him, held ".....that on the date of the election, namely on 12-9-1959, the respondent Mahanth did not possess the requisite qualifications as laid down in Section 20(1) of the Bihar Municipal Act for election to the office of the Chairman of the Municipality. On that date he was neither an elected commissioner, nor a person qualified to be one of their number."

3. Thereafter the present petitioners filed this application on the 10th of May, 1960, for an information in the nature of a quo warranto on the ground decided by the Election Commissioner against the respondent because he could not declare his election void as the election petitions were dismissed on, some technical grounds.

4. The case of the petitioners is this: The respondent was not registered as a voter in accordance with the rules made under Sub-section (1) of Sec.15 of the Act either on the 28th of March, 1959 or on the 12th of September, 1959. He was, therefore, not entitled to vote at the election pf the municipal commissioners. That being so, he was not qualified under Sec.17 to be a commissioner of the municipality on the 12th of September. Consequently, the commissioner could not elect the respondent to be the chairman under Section 20(1) of the Act. In answer to the rule, the learned Government Advocate" appearing for the respondent has urged that he was qualified to be a commissioner on the relevant date and, therefore, was validly elected as the chairman of the Arrah municipality by the commissioners.

In any event, he submitted, it is not a fit case where, in exercise of our discretion, we should issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto because (i) the petitioners are friends and associates of the two municipal " commissioners who had filed the election petitions against the respondent before the Election Commissioner and had failed a