SATYA SANDHI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners seek a writ of quo warranto against the respondent No. 2. The writ petitioners claim that since a criminal investigation by his subordinate was allegedly misdirected by such subordinate officers, the respondent No. 2 rendered himself unfit to hold his office and therefore writ of quo warranto should be issued to remove him from his office. The writ petitioners submit that, there are subsisting disputes with regard to the persons entitled to represent the petitioner No. 1. The various proceedings with regard to the composition of the writ petitioner No. 1 and its representations were taken and some of them are still pending. In particular, the writ petitioners refer to a criminal investigation, which is pending. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the police officer undertaking such police investigation did not conduct the inquiry properly. The report filed by such police officer was set aside on challenge at the behest of the writ petitioners.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that, since a police officer subordinate to respondent No. 2 had mis-conducted and misdirected a police investigation the respondent No. 2 should lay down office as he had rendered himself unfit to continue in the office. The writ petitioners suspect that, the investigating officer subordinate to the respondent No. 2 in convenience with the respondent No. 2 had misdirected and mis-conducted the police investigation. The petitioner relies on sections 6, 7 and 9 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866. The writ petitioners submit that, under section 9 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866 the police force is under the exclusive direction and control of the respondent No. 2. The writ petitioners rely on : N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose, 2009 7 SCC 1 and Centre for PIL v. Union of India, 2011 4 SCC 1 on the point that, institutional integrity is far above the personal integrity. Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, is referred to and submits that judicial notice of every law prevailing has to be taken notice by the Court in dealing with the facts scenario brought before it.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent No. 1 it is submitted that, disputes between two private citizens are sought to be converted into and agitated by way of writ of quo warranto. The writ petition is not maintainable. There is no challenge by the writ petitioners that the respondent No. 2 was unfit to be appointed to the office. What is the claimed by the writ petitioners is that, due to an alleged mis-conduct in respect of a criminal investigation undertaken by an officer subordinate to the respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 should be declared unfit to hold the office. A writ of quo warranto should not be issued in such circumstances. Reliance in this regard is placed on : University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao & Anr., 1965 AIR(SC) 491.