ORDER

Paul, J:-- 1. The petitioner, a practising Advocate has filed this Public Interest Litigation wherein it is prayed as under:-

(a) Issue appropriate writ of quo warranto and may direct to respondents to take serious disciplinary action against respondent No.4 and if he is unable to show or prove such an authority he may be ousted and restrained from functioning in the office and future bar also may be directed, which he has unlawfully usurped and intruded into or is unlawfully holding.

(b) Issue appropriate writ and may cost penalty on respondent for being on such post without proper authority for so long (one and half year)

(c) Issue appropriate writ and if he is not able to prove his authority then all the actions and proceedings taken by him must be suspended with immediate effects.

(d) Issue any other further order/orders or direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate to the facts and the circumstances of this case.”

2. In para three of the petition, it is averred as under:-

“That the petitioner is shattered by that an officer of different district is how liable to become an SDO/SDM of different district as the matter of fact is that the respondent No.4 was an Administrative Officer of District Dhar on the post of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer, NHDC Kukshi, District Dhar and then he was transferred to District Alirajpur on the post of Dy.Collector but during both the posting he was not there and during above both the postings he was performing his duty and taking action from last one and half year in disrtrict Indore on the post of SDO/SDM of various subdivision of district Indore, even he is not the officer of district Indore, which is totally illegal and unlawful as the appointment of respondent No.4 in Indore district on the post of SDO/SDM is not in accordance of law. And on remaining on the same post as SDO/SDM he defamed common people by posting their punishing image on personal handled Instagram page.” (Emphasis supplied)

3. The petitioner submits that on 14.12.2020 an order was passed by State government whereby 10 officers were transferred. Respondent No.4 was also transferred as Dy.Collector, Alirajpur from NHDC, Kukshi. The respondent No.4 never joined at District Alirajpur and started performing duty of SDM/SDO, Kanadiya Indore. Thus, writ of quo warranto may be issued against respondent No.4 to show under which authority he has working as SDM/SDO, Kanadia, Indore. The respondent No.4 SDO/SDM is misusing authority and making fun of common people and publishing those photographs on instagarm. Hence, a writ of quo warranto may be issued.

4. Per contra, Shri Vivek Dalal, learned A.A.G submits that writ of quo warranto is not maintainable. The petitioner has not impleaded the concerned officer eo nomine and, therefore, petition is not maintainable. There is no public interest element involved in the matter and petition appears to have been filed either for publicity or settle the personal score.

5. No other point is pressed by learned counsel or parties.

6. The petitioner has not filed the appointment order of the concerned officer/respondent No.4. The order dated 14th December, 2020 (Annexure P/4) shows that respondent No.4 is an officer of State Civil Services. The order further shows that he was posted as Dy.Collector. The appointment of respondent No.4 is not called in question. Indeed his posting and performance of a duty at a particular place namely Kanadia, Indore is called in question. This is clearlyoutside the scope of writ of quo warranto. We may hasten to mention that on more than one occasion the Court enquired from the petitioner, a practising Advocate as to how a writ of quo warranto is maintainable when petitioner is not challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 and has not chosen to implead him by name. Sadly, petitioner decided to avoid the said question repeatedly asked.

7. The apex Court in B.R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2001 SC 3435