A private person may apply for a writ of quo warranto in the matter of a public office, as every person must necessarily have an interest in matters which concern the public Government.

G.L.Chopra, J.

1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the same judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court declaring the office of the ten elected members of Municipal Committee, Barnala, to be vacant and ordering that these members be restrained from discharging any of the functions, rights and duties of a member of the Municipality. Letters Patent Appeal No. 209 of 1957 is presented by the State and the other. No. 162 of 1957, by the members whose seats are declared to be vacant.

2. Elections for the Municipal Committee, Barnala, (a second class Municipality) were held in September. 1956. The ten appellants were elected as members from the nine election-wards into which the town was divided. On 28-12-1956, two of the residents and voters entered on the rolls of the Municipality filed a petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution for a writ, direction or order in the nature of quo warranto challenging the right of the appellants to act as members of the Municipality. The petition was based on the allegation that the election was void and invalid and was vitiated by certain illegalities and irregularities. After the elections, the State of Pepsu, in which the town of Barnala was situate, was merged in the State of Punjab and, therefore, the State of Punjab and Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, were joined as respondents to the petition, in addition to the ten elected members. The petition was opposed by the opposite party alleging that the election proceedings were legal and regular and that the High Court should not interfere as the petitioners had not availed of the alternative and effective remedy by way of an ejection petition, as provided by the Election Rules.

3. The learned Single Judge found in favour of the petitioners only on one of the grounds on which the validity of the elections was challenged, viz., that after the addition of some more territory within the jurisdiction of the Barnala Municipality in 1953, no fresh wards were constituted by the Government and the residents of that area were not included in the electoral rolls as voters. In the opinion of the learned Judge, the earlier delimitation of 1952 had become obsolete when the boundaries of the Municipality were extended in 1953, and no election could validly take place without new and fresh delimitation under Sec, 240 (1) (b) and (c) of the Punjab Municipal Act. As provided by Rule 6 of the Election Rules, framed under the Act, every resident within the Municipal limits was entitled to vote, unless he was not a citizen of India or was below the age of 21 or was of unsound mind. The residents of additional area entitled to vote under this Rule could not be deprived of their right to vote and participate in the elections, The result was that an appreciable portion of its inhabitants was not allowed to vole fn the elections meant for the entire municipal area and that, too, without any valid order of the Government. This was regarded as a serious matter and an illegality which vitiated the elections. The objection that the petitioners ought to have challenged the ejection by means of an election petition and, therefore, a direction in the nature of quo warranto should not be issued was turned down. An order in favour of the petitioners, as already stated, was consequently made.

4. The findings of the learned Judge regarding the alleged illegality and its effect on the elections is not being seriously challenged before us. The only points canvassed in these appeals are ;

(i) that the two petitioners had no locus standi to present the petition and pray for the writ of quo warranto;

(ii) that the writ petition was not the proper remedy and therefore the discretion ought not to have been exercised in favour of the petitioners.

5. The normal rule is that a petition under Article 226 can only be made by a person who has some right and whose right has been infringed. This rule, however, is not an inflexible or an absolute one. There are some wel