K J JOSEPH Vs. HONBLE JUSTICE K SUKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent in this case is a sitting Judge of this court. The petitioner prays that this court should issue a writ of quo warrant calling upon the first respondent to show before this court under what authority, the first respondent is holding the office of a Judge of this court. The petitioner submits that there was no proper, effective and meaningful consultation as contemplated under Art.217 of the Constitution of India in the matter of the appointment of the first respondent as a Judge of this court. This is the stereo-bate of this action.

(2.) Before I consider the points raised by the petitioner, I feel that I should tell in brief what I understand to be the sphere of action and the whip hand of a writ of quo warranto. What is the width and orbit of this prerogative writ In fact this prerogative writ in its prestine form is now obsolete in the country of its origin. But in India, Art.226 of the Constitution specifically provides that every High Court shall have power to issue to any person or authority ... writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. A writ of quo warranto postulates an answer to a query to the holder of a public office. The query in plain language is, where is your warrant of appointment by which you are holding this office In short, it is an enquiry as to under what authority, the person in question is holding his office, franchise or liberty as the case may be.

(3.) Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Vol II Para 281 contains a succinct summary of 'he decisions of English Court with regard to the discretion of the Court in issuing a writ of quo warranto. It runs thus:-