S C MALIK Vs. P P SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is an Advocate has applied for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the appointment of the respondent as Registrar of this High Court. The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the respondent Was illegally appointed, and also, prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash the notification, Annex. 'P-l' by which he Was appointed. It is also stated that an order, direction or writ in the nature of quo warranto be issued against the respondent. Basically, the petition is one for a writ of quo warranto, but other aspects of the matter which may be open have also to be considered.

(2.) A show cause notice was issued' to the respondent and we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the writ of quo warranto has to be limited to the formal validity of the order appointing the respondent and no question of motive or other ground can be gone into. For this purpose reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Full Bench in P. L. Lakhanpal v. A. N. Ray, ILR (1974) 1 Delhi 725 : (AIR 1975 Delhi 66), wherein it was held that a writ of quo warranto is a writ of technical nature which merely asks the question as to whether there was a warrant of appointment for holding the office and the question of mala fides was completely irrelevant to the matter. In that case, the appointment of Justice A. N. Ray as Chief Justice of India was under challenge. In the present case, the order under challenge Annex. 'P-l' is, therefore, a complete answer to the petition viewed as a writ of quo warranto.