IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 10.12.2025 Pronounced on : 21.01.2026 Uploaded on: 21.01.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or the full judgment is pronouned: full judgment Pradeep Singh Advocate …….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: Mr. Jagmohan Singh Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate (Arguing Counsel)

With Mr. Sourav Mago, Deputy A.G., Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Deputy A.G., Haryana, and Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate, for the State of Haryana.

****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE

1. The powers under Article 226 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India are invoked, seeking a writ of Quo Warranto against respondent No.2 – Shri Pravindra Singh Chauhan, Advocate General, State of Haryana, alleging that his appointment is in disregard of the constitutional provisions, memorandum of procedure for Appointment of High Court Judges and is violative of Article 165 (1) of the Constitution.

1.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decisions of Apex Court in B.K. Kapur Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, (2001) 7 SCC 231; Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahato and others, (2010) 9 SCC 655; M. Manohar Reddy and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2013) SCC 99; Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and others, (2013) 1 SCC 501; Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo and others, (2014) 1 SCC 161; M. Pentiah Vs. Muddala Veeramallappa, AIR 1961 SC 1107; S.P. Jain Vs. Krishan Mohan Gupta, (1987) 1 SCC 191; RBI Vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., 1987 (1) SCC 424; Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam, (1989) 3 SCC 709; UCO Bank and another Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2008) 5 SCC 257; Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. Vs. Eastern Metals and Ferro Alloys, (2011) 11 SCC 334; Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2022) 5 SCC 179; Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth and another Vs. Chancellor Kannaur University and others, AIR 2024 SC 135; Dr. Bool Chand Vs. The Chancellor, Kurukshetra University, AIR 1968 SC 292; State of Travancore – Cochin and others Vs. The Bombay Co. Ltd. State of Travancore – Cochin and another, AIR 1952 Trav. Cochin 66; G.D. Karkare Vs. T.L. Shevde, AIR 1952 Nag. 330; The University of Mysore and another Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and another, AIR 1965 SC 491; Suo moto Contempt Petition (Crl.) No.10 of 2021 (Re : Arundhatii Roy), reported in AIR 2002 SC 1375; Southern Power Distribution Power Co. Ltd. Vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd., (2022) 5 SCC 484; P.V. George and others Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2007) 3 SCC 557; Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. Vs. Jardine Henderson Staff Association, (2006) 6 SCC 581; E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, AIR 1974 SC 555; Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597; R.D. Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and others, AIR 1979 SC 1628; Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2006 SC 2571; Manoj Narula Vs. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 609; and K. Karunakaran Vs. T.V. Eachara Warrier, (1978) 1 SCC 18.

1.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Dr. Het Ram Kalia Vs. Himachal Pradesh University, AIR 1977 NOC 246, decision of Calcutta High Court in Ashgar Ally Vs. Dr. Birendra Nath Dey, AIR 1945 Cal. 249; and a decision rendered by United Kingdom House of Lords in R. Vs. Horseferry Road Magistrate’s Court Ex. P. Bennett reported in (1994) 1 AC 42.

2. The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have been relied upon by the petitioner essentially to canvass the following propositions: the scope of a writ of quo warranto; the higher standard required to be demonstrated by holders of constitutional offices; mandatory compliance with stat