Mr. P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.—Respondent No. 2 herein who was a member of the Criminal Judicial Service and who retired on 28.2.90 was appointed as the President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam. The petitioner who claims to be a social worker engaged in consumer protection activities, a member of Chathanoor Panchayat and the President of Kerala Karshaka Sanghom Chathanoor Panchayat Committeehas filed this Original Petition praying for the issue of a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of respondent No. 2 as President of the Forum on the ground that respondent No. 2 is not qualified to be appointed as its President. Under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act each District Forum shall consist of “a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District, Judge, who shall be its President” (the rest omitted as being not relevant at this stage). According to the petitioner since respondent No. 2 is not a District Judge, was not a District Judge and is not qualified to be a District Judge, he cannot be appointed as President of the District Forum. There is no case for the state or that he is a District Judge. The appointment of respondent No. 2 as President of the District Forum is sought to be justified on the ground that he is qualified to be a District Judge.

2. In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao (A.I.R. 1965 SC 491), it has been stated :

“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.”

A Division Bench of this Court (to which I was a party) in Raghavan Nair v. Padmakumar (I.L.R. 1992 (3) Ker. 677) has summed up the principles thus :

“A writ of quo warranto postulates an answer to a query to the holder of a public office. The query in plain language is, where is your warrant of appointment by which you are holding this office? In short, it is an enquiry as to under what authority, the person in question is holding his office, franchise or liberty as the case may be. The Court has to take into consideration public interest, the consequence to follow the issue of a writ of quo warranto and all the other circumstances of the case. Unlike the other prerogative writs, the issue of writ in the nature of quo warranto was purely a discretionary writ. The English principles which govern the writ still apply in India, particularly, in view of the fact that the writ of quo warranto as referred to is expressly provided in Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. The principles of which have been followed by the Supreme Court and other Courts in India. They are : (i) a stranger whose motives were not improper could apply for a writ of quo warranto, (ii) a quo warranto will lie if there is a public office of a substantive character even if such office is held at pleasure; (iii) even if an appointment to the office is made by the Crown, and the Court cannot, even in appearance, command the Crown, the writ of quo warranto operates on the holder of the office; (iv) it is not to be supposed that the Crown would re-appoint a person to an office from which he has been ousted on a writ of quo warranto on the ground that his appointment was illegal.”

3. There is no dispute that the office in question is a public office. In a sense tine motive of the petitioner in approaching this Court is questioned by submitting that he has no locus standi. But considering that what is questioned is the right of respondent No. 2 to be the President of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dealing with the grievances of consumers in general, I am inclined to the view that the petitioner has sufficient locus standi to approach this Court. The only question that has seriously to be considered is whether the appointment of