GEORGE JOSEPH Vs. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUO warranto is derived from Latin which literally means 'by what authority'. It is a judicial remedy against an intruder or an usurper of an independent or substantive public office or franchise or liberty. The writ of quo warranto is an ancient Common law remedy of a prerogative nature. A person holding an office, if not able to establish his claim as well-founded, was to be ousted. In Corpus Juris Secundum, (Vol. 74, para 1, page 174) quo warranto is defined thus:

(2.) THE writ of quo warranto is a prerogative writ. As is stated in the Halsbury's laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 1, para 169, the sole object of quo warranto is to enquire by what authority the incumbent was exercising the right to a public office and to have him ousted if his claim or assertion is not well founded. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope of the writ of quo warranto in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao (AIR 1965 SC 491 ). The principle has been explained as follows:-

(3.) IN Kumar Padam Prasad v. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 1213), the Apex court observed that it had to experience a painful jurisdiction to determine the eligibility of a person appointed as a Judge of High Court by the President of India. Since the person was not qualified, the appointment had to be quashed. It was held thus: