Kurian Joseph,J.

Quo warranto is derived from Latin which literally means 'by what authority'. It is a judicial remedy against an intruder or an usurper of an independent or substantive public office or franchise or liberty. The writ of quo warranto is an ancient Common Law remedy of a prerogative nature. A person holding an office, if not able to establish his claim as well- founded, was to be ousted. In Corpus Juris Secundum, (Volume 74, para 1, page 174 )quo warranto is defined thus:

"Quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the right to the exercise of a franchise or office and to oust the holder if his claim is not well founded, or if he has forfeited his right".

In the Commentaries of Blackstone, (page 262 it is explained thus:

"The ancient writ of quo warranto was in the nature of a writ of right for the King against any office, franchise or liberty of the Crown to inquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order to determine the right".

In Halsbury's Laws of England, (4th Edition Volume I page 163) the doctrine is explained as follows:

"An information in the nature of quo warranto took the place of the obsolete writ of quo warranto which lay against a person who claimed or usurped an office, franchise or liberty, to enquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order that the right to the office or franchise might be determined."

The first case in India on quo warranto was from Calcutta in Corkhill, Re, reported in (1895) ILR 22 Calcutta 717. That was a case where one Mr.Corkhill, who was holding the office of the Commissioner of the Corporation, was called upon to explain under what authority he held the office. The allegation was that his name had been proposed and approved by voters who were not on the electoral list. Though on merits it was found that the voters were qualified, the power of the court to issue a writ of quo warranto was upheld in that case.

2. The writ of quo warranto is a prerogative writ. As is stated in the Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 1, para 169, the sole object of quo warranto is to enquire by what authority the incumbent was exercising the right to a public office and to have him ousted if his claim or assertion is not well founded. The Supreme had occasion to consider the scope of the writ of quo warranto in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491,. The principle has been explained as follows:-

"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". (emphasis supplied)

In a recent decision in B.R.Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2001 SC 3435 the Supreme Court has again dealt with in detail the principles underlying the writ of quo warranto.

3. In Kumar Padam Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1213, the apex court observed that it had to experience a painful jurisdiction to determine the eligibility of a person appointed as a Judge of High Court by the President of India. Since the person was not qualified, the appointment had to be quashed. It was held thus:

"We are fully aware of the delicacy and sensitivity of the matter and the stage at which the matter has been brought before us for judicial scrutiny. We make it clear that ordinarily the domain in such matters lies wholly with the constitutional authorities mentioned in Article 217 of the Constitution, but in except