AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner before this Court Smt. Nandibai W/o Bhagirathji as reflected in the cause title, has filed this present petition through a Power of
Attorney holder Bhai Ghasnhyam S/o
Salagram. The relief clause reads as under:-
**d izR;FkhZ dzekad&1 ds ftyk dysDVj bUnkSj ds }kjk vius vkns'kksa dk ikyu ugha djok ldus o iz'kkldh; v{kerk ds dkj.k dysDVj ftyk bUnkSj dk in
jhV vkWaQ dks&okj.Vks ikfjr dj fjDr ?kksf""kr djus] rFkk [k izn'kZ&4 ds lhekadu izfrosnu vuqlkj xzke [ktjkuk dh Hkwfe losZ dzekad 33 jdck 1-113
gsDVj dh lhek, fpfUgr djok;s tkus ds vkns'k izR;FkhZ dzekad&3 dks iznku djus] ,oa x izRFkFkhZ dzekad&7 }kjk bUnkSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dh xzke
[ktjkuk dh Hkwfe losZ dzekad 3 ,oa Ldhe uacj 94 dh Hkwfe;ksa ij fd;s x;s vfrdze.k ,oa cuk;s x;s edkukrksa dks vyx gVkus ds vkns'k izR;FkhZ
dzekad&5 vFkok 6 dks nsus] vkSj ?k izn'kZ&4 ds lhekadu izfrosnu vuqlkj rRle; xzke [ktjkuk dh Hkwfe losZ dzekad 33 ds lhekfpUg LFkkfir ugha djus
rFkk izn'kZ&8 ds vkns'kksa dk Hks LoSPNkpkfjrkiwoZd ikyu ugha djus gsrq nks""kh vf/kdkfj;ksa ds dnkpj.k ds fo:) l{ke dk;Zokgh djus ds vkns'k
izR;FkhZ dzekad&3 dks nsus] o p vU; U;k;ksfpr lgk;rk tks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; izkFkhZ ds fgr esa mfpr le>s] ikfjr djus dh d`ik djsa A**
02- The first prayer made in the relief clause is that a writ of quo warranto be issued for removing the Collector Indore, district Indore. Besides this
other reliefs have been prayed for demarcation of land bearing survey No.33 area 1.113 hectare and for removing some encroachment, etc.
03- Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the petitioner is the land owner and is daughter of one Salagram. It has been
further stated that a scheme was framed by the Indore Development Authority i.e. Scheme No.53 and an award was passed on 03/10/1988 under the
Land Acquisition Act and possession was taken on 16/09/1990. In a writ petition preferred before this Court i.e. Writ Petition No.244/1987 decided on
05/10/1996, the scheme was quashed.
04- Thereafter, a Letters Patent Appeal was preferred i.e. LPA No.45/1997. It was also decided on 01/05/1998 upholding the order passed by this
Court in Writ Petition No.244/1987 and thereafter, the Indore Development Authority has framed a new scheme. The petitioner's contention is that
she is the land owner and her land does not come under any scheme and therefore, demarcation should be done by the respondent.
05- She has stated that she has submitted an application to the Collector in Jan Sunwai and the subordinate authorities to the Collector are not
complying with the order passed by the Collector and therefore, writ of quo warranto be issued removing the Collector, Indore from his post.
06- The respondents have filed a reply and they have stated that the petitioner does not have any locus to challenge the office of respondent No.1 and
the writ of quo warranto can be issued when there is clear infringement of law established before this Court.
07- It has also been stated by the respondents that the respondent No.1 is a member of Indian Administrative Services. He has been posted by the
State Government as Collector, Indore and merely because the petitioner does not want to continue him as Collector, Indore, the relief prayed by the
petitioner cannot be granted and the petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
08- The respondents have further stated that the facts of the case reveal that the petitioner has allegedly moved an application for demarcation of land
bearing survey No.33 on the ground that this Court in writ petition No.3765/2015 has observed that the remaining land of 0.250 hectares of survey
No.33 has not been utilized by Indore Development Authority till date. The respondents have stated that demarcation report over which the petitioner
is placing reliance is not based upon any application submitted by the petitioner and is not in the name of the petitioner nor the petitioner is
Bhumiswami in respect of any land.
09- This Court has asked a categoric question to the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out any document to establish before this Court that the
petitioner is legal heir of Late Salagram. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to do so. He has not been able to establish that the petitioner is
the legal heir of Late Salagram.
10- The respondents have also stated that the petitioner is neither the Bhumiswami nor has got any right over any land situated at Khajrana. It has also
been stated that the petitioner did approach the Collector in Jan Sunwai and has not submitted any application under Section 129 of the M. P. Land
Revenue Code, 1959 before the Tehsildar.
11- The respondents have stated that in case a person wants his land demarcated has to submit an application under Section 129 of the M. P. Land
Revenue Code, 1959 and there is a process provided under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 for demarcation. The respondents have stated that
petition filed by the petitioner is a frivolous in nature and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. There is no Power of Attorney filed alongwith the
petition filed by the so called Power of Attorney holder who has filed the present petition.
12- It has also been stated in return that the Power of Attorney holder has received compensation way back in the year 1997 in respect of land in
question and after receiving compensation in 1997 he is making all hue and cry in the matter.
13- This Court has carefully gone through the writ petition as well as reply filed the respondents. The petitioner has not been able to point out violation
of any statutory provision of law before this Court. The petitioner's contention is that she has made some application for demarcation of land in Jan
Sunwai and the demarcation of land is not being done. In the considered opinion of this Court, Jan Sunwai is not the proper forum for demarcation of
land. In case the petitioner, if she is owner of some land, she does have a remedy to file an application under Section 129 of the M. P. Land Revenue
Code, 1959.
14- Not only this, there is no Power of Attorney given by petitioner Nandibai in favour of Bhai Ghanshyam on record. In the considered such a petition
without there being any Power of Attorney is again not at all maintainable. Resultanlty, as the petitioner has not been able to establish before this
Court that she is legal heir of Late Salagram and there is no power of attorney empowering the present petitioner to file the present petition, the
petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
15- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of University of Mysore & Anr. Vs. C. D. Govinda Rao & Anr. reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 has held
that a person claiming writ of quo warranto has to satisfy the Court inter-alia, i.e. office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without
legal authority.
16- The apex Court in the case of High Court Of Gujarat & Anr Vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat reported in (2003) 4 SCC 712 has held that
High Court should determine at the outset whether the case of issuance of writ of quo warranto is made out or not and jurisdiction to issue a writ of
quo warranto is a limited one and can be exercised only when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.
17- In the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association & Others reported in 206 (11)
SCC 731 (2), the apex Court has held that a writ of quo warranto should be refused where it is an outcome of malice or ill-will.
18- The apex Court in the case of Centre for PIL & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 1 has dealt with issue of writ of quo
warranto. Paragraph No.51 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
“51. 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. Before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto he must satisfy the court
inter-alia that the office in question is a public office and it is held by a person without legal authority and that leads to the inquiry as to whether the
appointment of the said person has been in accordance with law or not. A writ of quo warranto is issued to prevent a continued exercise of unlawful
authority.â€
19- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Others reported in (2013) 1 SCC 501 has again dealt with
the maintainability of writ of quo warranto. Paragraph No.31 and 33 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
“31. From the aforesaid pronouncements it is graphically clear that a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto and he stands in the position of a
relater. He need not have any special interest or personal interest. The real test is to see whether the person holding the office is authorised to hold the
same as per law. Delay and laches do not constitute any impediment to deal with the lis on merits and it has been so stated in Kashinath G. Jalmi v.
Speaker (1993) 2 SCC 703.
In Centre for PLI v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 1, a three-Judge Bench, after referring to the decision in R. K. Jain v. Union of India (1993) 4
SCC 119, has opined thus: - (Centre for PLI case, SCC p.29 para 64)
“Even in R.K. Jain case, this Court observed vide para 73 that judicial review is concerned with whether the incumbent possessed qualifications for
the appointment and the manner in which the appointment came to be made or whether the procedure adopted was fair, just and reasonable. We
reiterate that the Government is not accountable to the courts for the choice made but the Government is accountable to the courts in respect of the
lawfulness/legality of its decisions when impugned under the judicial review jurisdiction.â€
It is also worth noting that in the said case a view has been expressed that the judicial determination can be confined to the integrity of the decision
making process in terms of the statutory provisions.â€
20- The apex Court in the case of Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 161 in
paragraph No.21 has held as under:-
“21. From the aforesaid exposition of law it is clear as noon day that the jurisdiction of the High Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto is a
limited one and can only be issued when the person holding the public office lacks the eligibility criteria or when the appointment is contrary to the
statutory rules. That apart, the concept of locus standi which is strictly applicable to service jurisprudence for the purpose of canvassing the legality or
correctness of the action should not be allowed to have any entry, for such allowance is likely to exceed the limits of quo warranto which is
impermissible. The basic purpose of a writ of quo warranto is to confer jurisdiction on the constitutional courts to see that a public office is not held by
usurper without any legal authority.â€
The apex Court has held that basic purpose of a writ of quo warranto is to confer jurisdiction on the constitutional courts to see that a public office is
not held by usurper without any legal authority.
21- Lastly the apex Court in the case of Renu and Others Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and Another reported in (2014) 14
SCC 50 in paragraph No.15 has held as under:-
“15. Where any such appointments are made, they can be challenged in the court of law. The quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial remedy
by which any person, who holds 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, so that his title to it may be duly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder of the office has no title, he would be
ousted from that office by judicial order. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto gives the Judiciary a weapon to control the Executive from
making appointment to public office against law and to protect a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he has a right. These
proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office who might be allowed to continue either with the connivance of the
Executive or by reason of its apathy. It will, thus, be seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy the Court
that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority, and that inevitably would lead to an enquiry as to whether
the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not. For issuance of writ of quo warranto, the Court has to satisfy
that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules and the person holding the post has no right to hold it. (Vide: The University of Mysore & Anr.
v. C.D. Govinda Rao & Anr., AIR 1965 SC 491; Shri Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1213; B.R. Kapur v. State of
Tamil Nadu & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 3435; The Mor Modern Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt.,
Haryana & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 2513; Arun Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1413; Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors.,
AIR 2010 SC 3515; and Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo & Ors., (2014) 1 SCC 161).â€
22- The petitioner before this Court though her Power of Attorney has not been able to satisfy that respondent No.1 lacks the eligibility criteria to hold
the post or his appointment is contrary to the rules. The respondent No.1 has proved his worth by qualifying Indian Civil Services Examination and is a
member of Indian Administrative Services. Being a senior officer of Madhya Pradesh Cadre, he has been posted as Collector, Indore by the State
Government and therefore, by no stretch of imagination a writ of quo warranto can be issued.
23- In the present case, the petitioner has gone to the extent in making a prayer before this Court to remove the Collector of Indore, District from his
post as allegedly he is administratively incompetent to work as Collector. The Collector has been impleaded as party by name.
24- In the considered opinion of this Court such unsubstantiated baseless allegations against a senior member of Indian Administrative Services are
uncalled for. Such a practice is deprecated by this Court and therefore this petition not only deserves to be dismissed but deserves to be dismissed
exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. The cost imposed by this Court be recovered from the person who has filed the present petition i.e. power of
attorney holder as arrears of land revenue and be deposited with M.P. Legal Aid Services Authority under intimation to the Principal Registrar of this
Court.
25- With the aforesaid, writ petition stands dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.