A writ of quo warranto can be issued even without infringement of a personal right, provided the challenged officeholder does not possess authority under law.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 7^th day of September 2023)

The petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of quo warranto against respondent Nos.4 to 9, who are nominated in the Board of Governors and Syndicate of the 3^rd respondent university, on the basis of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 (Ordinance No.39/2021), which was published on 20.2.2021 in the Kerala Gazette. As per the said ordinance, Section 23 of the Principal Act was amended and clause Nos. (iii) and (viii) were inserted.

The Amendment reads as follows:

(iii). Under the heading “Nominated members” after item (vii), the following item shall be inserted, namely,

(viii). Six members from the field of science, industry and higher education nominated by the Government of whom one shall be a woman and one shall belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes”.

2. On the basis of the said ordinance, respondent Nos. 4 to 9 were nominated as members of the Board of Governors and Syndicate of the 3^rd respondent university as per Ext.P2, G.O. (Rt) No.386/2021/HEDN dated 26.2.2021.

3. The members of the Board of Governors are holding public office as the University is a State University established and incorporated for the promotion of technical education in the State of Kerala. Respondent Nos.4 to 9 were nominated on the basis of Ordinance No.39/2021 and they can continue only if the validity of the nominations on the basis of the Ordinance is replaced by an Act. Though the ordinance was replaced by the University Laws and (Amendment) (No.2) Bill 2021 (in short referred to as ‘Bill No.50') has not received the assent of the Governor till date. Therefore, by virtue of Article 213(2)(a) of the Constitution of India, the Ordinance has ceased to operate. Therefore, the respondent Nos.4 to 9, who are nominated under the Ordinance and continuing as members of the Board of Governors and Syndicate of the 3^rd respondent University, shall cease to hold the office. But respondent Nos.4 to 9 are continuing as members of the Board of Governors and Syndicate and performing the duties and functions attached to the office. They do not have title to continue. Ordinance No.39/2021 was not passed by the Legislature, therefore it was re-promulgated as Ordinance No.50/2021 and thereafter by Ordinance No.94/2021. The legislature thereafter passed Bill No.50 in the 14^th Legislature Assembly. But has not received the assent of the Governor, whereby the ordinance has ceased to have effect from 14^th November 2021. The mere passing of the Bill by the Legislature will not make the Bill an Act until it is assented by the Governor. As such respondent Nos.4 to 9 have no authority to continue in office beyond the period of 6 months after the publication of the ordinance No.94/2021 and are usurpers in law. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this court for the following reliefs:---

“1. Issue a writ of quo warranto as against respondents 4 to 9 as they are continuing in office without authority of law and being usurpers of power;

2. Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondents 4 to 9 from continuing and exercising any power as members of Board of Governors and Syndicate of the respondent University under the grab of Ext-P2, as it has lost its efficacy and legal sanction;

3. Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents;

4. Grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent, wherein the allegations and averments in the Writ Petition have been denied except to those which are expressly admitted. The 1^st and foremost contention raised in the counter is that the petitioner is not personally aggrieved, and he does not have a cause of action to file this writ petition. The petitioner’s fundamental, constitutional or statutory right is not infringed, thereby his locus standi itself is questio