S N PATHAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was filed for issuance of quo-warranto against the Union Minister, Shri Laloo prasad for ousting him from the chair as the Union Minister, Railway. The allegation against him is that Shri Laloo Prasad had made derogatory statement that he would have crushed roller over the chest of Varun gandhi who had given speech against the muslim community.

(2.) A supplementary affidavit has been filed thereafter for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to discharge his obligation as enjoined upon them by the Constitution of India in compelling the respondent No. 3 to aside by the constitutional obligation which lies upon them. And also for issuance of a writ or an order including a writ in the nature of prohibition to the respondent No. 3 prohibiting him not to make derogatory and unconstitutional statement in public meeting.

(3.) AT the outset, we shall consider the question what is meant by 'writ of quo warranto' and under circumstances it can be issued. A writ of quo warranto poses a question to the holder or occupier of a public office what is your warrant of appointment by which you are holding the office ? If the answer is not satisfactory, the usurper can be ousted by issuance of a writ of quo warranto. In other words, the usurper of a public office is asked by what authority or warrant he is in such office. Quo warranto is a remedy or a procedure whereby the legality of the claim by a person asserts to an office or franchise is looked into and ousts such persons from the enjoyment of public office if he has no authority to hold such office. Ingredients necessary for the quo warranto writ was considered by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, (AIR 1965 SC 491), wherein the Court defined the broad principles as follows (at paragraph 7):