IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

WRIT PETITION No.1770 of 2025

Between:

V V RAMANA MURTHY, S/O CHALAPATI RAO, AGED ABOUT 60

YEARS, R/O 28 -306, CIRCLEPETA, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA

DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF

SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,

AMARAVATI AND 5 OTHERS.

...RESPONDENTS.

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 28.02.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No

___________________________

JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

Page 2 of 20

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

+ WRIT PETITION No.1770 of 2025

% 28.02.2025

WRIT PETITION No.1770 of 2025

Between:

V V RAMANA MURTHY, S/O CHALAPATI RAO, AGED ABOUT 60

YEARS, R/O 28 -306, CIRCLEPETA, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA

DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF

SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,

AMARAVATI AND 5 OTHERS.

...RESPONDENTS.

! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Turaga Sai Surya

^ Counsel for Respondents : Smt.S.Pranati, Spl. GP

Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1) AIR 1961 AP 250

2) 1963 SCC OnLine SC 15 : AIR 1965 SC 491

3) (2003) 4 SCC 712

4) (2006) 11 SCC 731

5) (2014) 1 SCC 161

6) (2018) 6 SCC 162

7) 2024 Supreme (Online)(AP) 3777

8) AIR 1988 SC 2181

9) AIR 2011 SC 1989

This Court made the following:

Page 3 of 20

APHC010034242025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3331]

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 1770/2025

Between:

V V Ramana Murthy ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. TURAGA SAI SURYA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I

2. NVS PRASADA VARMA

3. GP FOR SERVICES II

4. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI

The Court made the following:

ORDER

The above Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Quo

Warranto against the 5

th

respondent calling upon him to quit the office of

Full Additional Charge of Commissioner, Endowments, appointed in

Page 4 of 20

pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.37 dated 24.01.2025 issued by the 1

st

respondent, since the appointment was made contrary to Articles 14, 25

& 26 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner, who claims to be a staunch devotee of Sri

Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy, filed the above writ petitio n.

Averments, in the affidavit, in brief, are that the 5

th

respondent joined as

Assistant Commissioner in the Endowments Department in the year 2000

and is presently working as Additional Commissioner-II. He served as the

Executive Officer of Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple from

04.07.2007 to 01.09.2008 and from 02.03.2013 to 18.08.2019. He also

worked as the Executive Officer of Sri MANSAS Trust, Vizianagaram for

about 4 years in different points of time. During his tenure, the 5

th

respondent committed several irregularities. The 4

th

respondent

surrendered him to the Government vide proceedings

No.E1/COE15021/152/2019/2021 dated 29.06.2021. Later, a 3-men

committee is appointed to inquire into the illegalities. The 3-men

committee submitted a report dated 16.07.2021 to the Commissioner

pointing out irregularities/illegalities committed by the 5

th

respondent.

Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.494 Revenue (VIG.IV)

Department dated 06.08.2021 suspending the 5

th

respondent, pending

enquiry. The 5

th

respondent filed W.P.No.18251 of 2021. An interim

suspension of the suspension proceedings on 06.01.2022 was granted.

The 5

th

respondent was reinstated as Additional Commissioner-II of the

Endowments Department. The 1

st

respondent issued U.O.Note

No.2688771/SC.A/A1/2025, dated 21.01.2025 requesting the 2

nd

respondent to place the 5

th

respondent as in charge to the post of

Commissioner, Endowments until further orders. Later, by way of

Page 5 of 20

amendment the appointment of the 5

th

respondent as Commissioner,

Endowments, full additional charge, was assailed.

3. Heard Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Smt.S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1

to 4 & 6 and Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for 5

th

respondent.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4 & 6

and Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for 5

th

respondent

reported no counter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 5

th

respondent who was suspended for committing irregularities and

illegalities, in pursuance of the 3-men committee report dated

16.07.2021, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.18241 of 2021 by not

disclosing facts. Taking advantage of the interim order passed by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court, the 5

th

respondent managed the

respondents 1 to 3 and was reinstated as Additional Commissioner-II.

The reinstatement of the 5

th

respondent as Additional Commissioner-II

itself is an abuse of process and further placing the 5

th

respondent, as an

incharge, Commissioner, Endowment is nothing but perpetuating

illegality.

6. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents

1 to 4 & 6 and Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for 5

th

respondent would contend that the interim order granted in

W.P.No.18251 of 2021 dated 06.01.2022 is nothing to with the 5

th

respondent appointment as incharge of the post of Commissioner,

Endowments. The 5

th

respondent was appointed as Additional

Page 6 of 20

Commissioner-II by G.O.Rt.No.186 dated 21.03.2022 and since then he

has been discharging the duties. They would also submit that the

petitioner is qualified to be appointed. Learned counsel would point out

that the writ petitioner failed to point out any disqualification of 5

th

respondent to be appointed as an incharge to the post of the

Commissioner, Endowments and would submit the writ of quo warranto

itself is not maintainable. They would also submit that the petitioner has

no locus to file the writ petition.

7. Now, the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the petitioner had the locus to file the writ

petition?

2) Whether the 5

th

respondent suffered any disqualification to

hold the post of Commissioner, Endowments , full

additional charge, as per the provisions of the Andhra

Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments Act, 1987?

8. Shorn of all details, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner’s

appointment as Assistant Commissioner in the year 2000; petitioner’s

suspension vide G.O.Rt.No.494 dated 06.08.2021; interim order dated

06.01.2022 in I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2021 in W.P.No.18251 of 2021 and

thereafter, the petitioner’s reinstatement as Additional Commissioner-II

vide G.O.Rt.No.186 dated 21.03.2022.

9. The 1

st

respondent issued U.O. Note dated 21.01.2025 (Ex.P8)

requesting the Revenue (Endowments) Department to place the 5

th

respondent, Additional Commissioner as in charge of the post of the

Commissioner, Endowments, until further orders. Thereafter,

Page 7 of 20

G.O.Rt.No.37 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department dated 24.01.2025

was issued keeping the 5

th

respondent in Full Additional Charge to the

post of Commissioner, Endowments, until further orders.

10. The Locus Standi, of the petitioner needs to be considered,

foremost, before proceeding further. The answer to the said question is

no longer res integra.

11. In Mocherla Venkataraya Sarma Vs. Y.Sivarama Prasad

1

, the

Division Bench of the composite High Court regarding maintainability of

writ of quo warranto by a third party/relator observed thus:

11. … At the outset, we must say that we cannot accede to the

theory propounded on behalf of the Government that the relator

having no personal interest in the matter could not exhibit this

information against the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman. It is

argued on behalf of the Government that the petitioner has no locus

standi to seek the jurisdiction of the Court for this purpose. In our

opinion, an information would lie even at the instance of a relator

who has no personal interest in the matter. Information in the nature

of quo warranto could be filed in the case of Municipal Corporations

or local Boards on the relation of private parties. It is open to a

private individual to bring it to the notice of the Court that a person

who is disqualified to hold an office is still holding it. A person who is

not legally entitled to hold an office should not be permitted to hold it.

“………………this proceeding by information in the nature of quo

warranto will lie for usurping any office, whether created by charter

alone, or by the Crown, with the consent of Parliament, provided the

office be of a public nature, and a substantive office not merely the

1

AIR 1961 AP 250

Page 8 of 20

function or employment of a Deputy or servant held at the will and

pleasure of others. The test to be applied is whether there has been

usurpation of and office of a public nature and an office substantive

in character, that is, an office independent in title.”

12. Therefore, it is competent for a voter or a member of any of

the local bodies to invoke the jurisdiction of this court for the issue of

information in the nature of quo warranto Consequently, the

proceedings could be entertained by this Court for the purpose for

which its jurisdiction is invoked.

13. This leads us to the question whether the jurisdiction of this

court should be exercised in a case like this. As pointed out by

Tindal, C.J. in deciding whether the information should be refused or

whether the rule should be granted, the test is whether there has

been usurpation of an office; in other words, whether there is a legal

disability to hold the office by or a legal prohibition against a person

occupying a particular place.

12. Thus, given the expression of the Division Bench, in the

considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner can maintain a writ of quo

warranto and got locus. The first point is answered in the affirmative.

13. Before proceeding further, let this Court examine the qualification

for appointment of the Commissioner, prescribed in Chapter-II of the

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) and the Andhra Pradesh

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Service

Rules, 2002 (for short “the Rules”).

14. Section 3 of the Act deals with appointing Commissioner,

Additional Commissioner, Regional Joint Commissioner, Deputy

Page 9 of 20

Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner. Section 3 (1) prescribes

that subject to the provisions of section 4, the Government shall appoint

a Commissioner etc., to exercise the powers and perform the functions

conferred on or entrusted to them by or under this Act. Section 3 (2)

prescribes that the Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner etc.,

appointed under sub-section (1), exercising the powers and performing

the functions as aforesaid in respect of religious institutions or

endowments, shall be a person professing Hindu religion and shall cease

to exercise those powers and perform those functions when he ceases to

profess that religion. Section 3 (3) prescribes that the service conditions

of the officers appointed under sub-section (1), shall be such as may be

determined by the Government. Section 3 (4) delineates that the officers

appointed under sub-section (1) shall be the employees of shall be

employees of the Government.

15. Section 4 of the Act prescribes the qualifications for appointment of

Commissioner etc. Section 4 (1) (a, b, c & d), which is relevant is

extracted below:

(1) A person to be appointed as the Commissioner, shall be one-

(a) who is holding or has held a post of the District Collector or a

post not lower in rank than that of a District Collector in any

other service in the State; or

(b) who is holding or has held a post in the Andhra Pradesh State

Higher Judicial Service; or

(c) who has at least ten years practice as an Advocate of the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh or of the Supreme Court; or

(d) who has been holding the post of Additional

Commissioner: (emphasis is mine)

Page 10 of 20

16. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.245 Revenue (ENDT.1)

Department dated 08.05.2002 the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu

Religious Institutions and Endowments Service Rules, 2002. Rule 3

deals with appointing authority and the method of appointment. Rule 2

deals with constitutions i.e. Classes and Categories of posts. Class-I,

Category-1 is the post of the Commissioner. The method of

appointment of the Commissioner is prescribed in Column No.4, which

reads thus:

(i) By appointment of a person who is holding or has held a

post of District Collector or a post not below the rank of

District Collector in any other Service in the State or

(ii) By appointment of a person who is holding or has held a

post in the Andhra Pradesh Higher Judicial Service; or

(iii) By appointment of a person who has at least 10 years of

practice as an advocate in the High Court of Andhra

Pradesh Or the Supreme Court of India or

(iv) By promotion from the category of Addl. Commissioner

(Category-II of Class – I)

17. Thus, a combined reading of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and Rule

3 of the Rules, a person holding the post of Additional Commissioner is

eligible to be appointed as the Commissioner and that person shall be a

person professing Hindu religion and shall cease to exercise those

powers and perform those functions when he ceases to profess that

religion. Section 7 of the Act prescribes that the Commissioner shall be a

corporate sole and shall have perpetual succession and common seal

and may sue or be sued in his corporate name. Section 8 of the Act,

deals with the powers and functions of the Commissioner and Additional

Commissioner.

Page 11 of 20

18. Thus, Section 3 (2) of the Act mandates that the person should

profess Hindu religion to hold the post of the Commissioner, Additional

Commissioner etc. Section 4 (d) of the Act coupled with Rule 3, makes it

clear that the person holding the post of the Additional Commissioner is

eligible to be appointed as the Commissioner.

19. That being the scenario, the 5

th

respondent who has been

discharging the duties as additional commissioner, appointed to

discharge the duties as in charge Commissioner, Endowments is

qualified and, prima facie, is not disqualified. The 5

th

respondent, once, is

qualified, and further not disqualified, whether the writ of quo warranto

can be issued needs further probe.

BRIEF HISTORY OF WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

20. Quo warranto was originally a prerogative writ, which the Crown

could use to inquire into the title to any office or franchise claimed by a

subject. It fell out of use in the 16

th

Century and was replaced by

information like quo warranto, which, in form, was a criminal proceeding

instituted in the name of the Crown by the Attorney General or by a

private prosecutor. The Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous

Provisions) Act, 1938 (replaced by the Supreme Court Act, 1981)

discussed the quo warranto that “where any person acts in an office to

which he is not entitled and an information would previously have a lien

against him, the High Court may restrain him by way of injunction and

may declare the office as vacant if need be, and no such proceeding

shall be taken by a person who would not previously have been entitled

to apply for any information”.

Page 12 of 20

21. In U.K., injunctions may be granted to restrain persons from acting

in offices to which they are not entitled. Before 1938, any information like

quo warranto could be laid by the Attorney General or private prosecutor

to determine whether a person was entitled to a particular office. The

procedure was abolished in 1938 and since then injunctions have been

available for the purpose. Section 30 of the Supreme Court Act, 1981

empowers the courts to grant an injunction to restrain a person's action in

an office of a public nature and of a permanent character which is held

under the Crown or created by statute or Royal Charter. The application

for such an injunction can only be made by way of judicial

injunction/review. (Administrative Law by HWR WADE & C.F.

FORSYTH).

22. Learned author P.P. Craig in his book “Administrative Law” while

dealing with quo warranto says “An information like quo warranto was

until 1938, the procedure by which challenged to the usurpation of a

public office were made. In 1938, information like quo warranto was

abolished and replaced by the injunction. (The Administration of Justice

[Miscellaneous Provisions] Act, 1938 now Section 30 of the Supreme

Court Act, 1981). The substance of the action however, remained the

same and the old rule still governing only the form of the remedy was

altered.

23. Corpus Juris Secundum defined quo warranto as "quo warranto

proceeding in the nature thereof is a proper and appropriate remedy to

test the right or the title to an office and to remove or oust the incumbent.

It is prosecuted by the State against a person who unlawfully usurps,

intrudes or holds a public office. The relator must establish that the office

Page 13 of 20

is being unlawfully held and exercised by the respondent and that the

relator is entitled to that office”.

24. WHARTON'S LAW LEXICON, quo warranto has been defined as

"quo warranto is writ issuable out of the Queen's Bench, in the nature of

writ of right, for the Crows against him who claims or usurps any office,

franchise or liberty, to enquiry by what authority he supports his claim in

order to determine the right. It also lies in case of non-use or long neglect

of a franchise or misuse or abuse of it, being a writ commanding the

defendant to show by what warrant he exercises such a franchise having

never had any grant of it or having fortified it by neglect or abuse".

25. In University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao

2

, the Hon’ble

Apex Court held thus:

“6. The judgment of the High Court does not indicate that the

attention of the High Court was drawn to the technical nature of the

writ of quo warranto which was claimed by the respondent in the

present proceedings, and the conditions which had to be satisfied

before a writ could issue in such proceedings.

As Halsbury has observed [Halsbury's laws of England, 3

rd

Edn. Vol., II, p. 145]:

“An information in the nature of a quo warranto took the place

of the obsolate writ of quo warranto which lay against a person who

claimed or usurped an office, franchise, or liberty, to enquire by what

authority he supported his claim, in order that the right to the office

or franchise might be determined.”

Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial

enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive

2

1963 SCC OnLine SC 15 : AIR 1965 SC 491

Page 14 of 20

public office, or franchise, or liberty, is called upon to show by what

right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty; if the inquiry leads

to the finding that the holder of the office has no valid title to it, the

issue of the writ of quo warranto ousts him from that office. In other

words, the procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and

authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of

making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory

provisions; it also protects a citizen from being deprived of public

office to which he may have a right. It would thus be seen that if

these proceedings are adopted subject to the conditions recognised

in that behalf, they tend to protect the public from usurpers of public

office; in some cases, persons, not entitled to public office may be

allowed to occupy them and to continue to hold them as a result of

the connivance of the executive or with its active help, and in such

cases, if the jurisdiction of the courts to issue writ of quo warranto is

properly invoked, the usurper can be ousted and the person entitled

to the post allowed to occupy it. It is thus clear that before a citizen

can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the court, inter alia,

that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper

without legal authority, and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as

to whether the appointment of the said alleged usurper has been

made in accordance with law or not.”

26. In High Court of Gujarat Vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor

Panchayat

3

, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:

“22. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of

this nature is required to determine at the outset as to whether a

case has been made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ

of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of

3

(2003) 4 SCC 712

Page 15 of 20

quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ, the Court

merely makes a public declaration but will not consider the

respective impact on the candidates or other factors which may be

relevant for issuance of a writ of certiorari. (See R.K. Jain v. Union of

India [(1993) 4 SCC 119 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1128] , para 74.)

23. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment

is contrary to the statutory rules. (See Mor Modern Coop. Transport

Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2002) 6 SCC 269] .)”

27. In B.Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply &

Drainage Board Employees' Assn

4

., the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:

“49. … The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo

warranto is a limited one which can only be issued when the

appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.

***

51. It is settled law by a catena of decisions that the court cannot sit

in judgment over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of the

person to be appointed so long as the person chosen possesses the

prescribed qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment.

This Court in R.K. Jain v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 119 : 1993

SCC (L&S) 1128] was pleased to hold that the evaluation of the

comparative merits of the candidates would not be gone into in a

public interest litigation and only in a proceeding initiated by an

aggrieved person, may it be open to be considered. It was also held

that in service jurisprudence it is settled law that it is for the

aggrieved person, that is, the non-appointee to assail the legality or

correctness of the action and that a third party has no locus standi to

canvass the legality or correctness of the action. Further, it was

declared that public law declaration would only be made at the

4

(2006) 11 SCC 731

Page 16 of 20

behest of a public-spirited person coming before the court as a

petitioner.”

28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Electricity Supply Utility,

Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo

5

, held thus:

“21. … the jurisdiction of the High Court while issuing a writ of quo

warranto is a limited one and can only be issued when the person

holding the public office lacks the eligibility criteria or when the

appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. That apart, the

concept of locus standi which is strictly applicable to service

jurisprudence for the purpose of canvassing the legality or

correctness of the action should not be allowed to have any entry,

for such allowance is likely to exceed the limits of quo warranto

which is impermissible. The basic purpose of a writ of quo warranto

is to confer jurisdiction on the constitutional courts to see that a

public office is not held by usurper without any legal authority.”

29. The Hon’ble Apex Court considering the scope of quo warranto in

Bharati Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka

6

, held that the writ of quo

warranto cannot be issued, unless the Court is satisfied that the

incumbent was not eligible at all as per the statutory provisions for being

appointed or elected to the public office or that he/she has incurred

disqualification to continue in the said office, which satisfaction should be

founded on the indisputable facts.

30. Thus, a conspectus of the above expressions of the Hon’ble Apex

Court, the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and a writ can be issued

when an appointment is made contrary to the statutory rules and the

5

(2014) 1 SCC 161

6

(2018) 6 SCC 162

Page 17 of 20

holder of the office doesn’t qualify or suffers disqualification. The Court

cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Government, in the choice

of the person to be appointed, so long as the person chosen possesses

the prescribed qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment. The

jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and can only be issued when a

person holding the public office lacks eligibility criteria and when the

appointment is contrary to statutory rules. The basic purpose of, quo

warranto, is to confer jurisdiction on the constitutional courts to see that

public office shall not held by usurper without legal authority.

CONSIDERATION:

31. In the case at hand, as discussed supra, the 5

th

respondent has

been discharging the duties in the cadre of Additional Commissioner and

is eligible as per Section 4 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules. The

only disqualification, as seen from the provisions of the Act, as per

Section 3 (2) of the Act is that the person should profess Hindu religion,

otherwise, the person shall cease to exercise those powers and perform

those functions.

32. The grievance of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit is that the

5

th

respondent was placed under suspension vide Ex.P4, in pursuance of,

Ex.P2 report. Thereafter the 5

th

respondent approached this Court by

filing W.P.No.18251 of 2021, wherein an interim order was granted on

06.01.2022 and he was reinstated into service vide Ex.P7 dated

21.03.2022. Thus, the petitioner would contend that the 5

th

respondent

may misuse the office since he has been facing charges. Nowhere in the

affidavit, it was pleaded about the qualification or disqualification of the 5

th

respondent to hold the post of Commissioner, Endowments in full

additional charge.

Page 18 of 20

33. It is apposite to mention here that originally the writ petition was

filed seeking a writ of Mandamus and later, the petitioner sought

amendment concerning the prayer one to quo warranto by filing I.A.No.3

of 2025. The said petitioner was ordered on 30.01.2025.

34. The pleadings in the writ petition play a vital role in deciding the

issue. This Court emphasized the importance of pleadings in Yenuganti

Thriveni Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

7

, by relying upon the expression

in Bharat Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others

8

and

Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs State of M.P. and another

9

. In Bharat

Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus:

“13. … where a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to

be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ

petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must

appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the

counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in

support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the

counter affidavit as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the

point. There is a distinction between a pleading under the Civil

procedure code and a writ petition of a counter affidavit. While in a

pleading, that a point or a written statement, the facts and no

evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the

counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of

such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.”

35. Thus, at least, there should have been an averment in the affidavit

regarding the 5

th

respondent not possessing the qualification and

7

2024 Supreme (Online)(AP) 3777

8

AIR 1988 SC 2181

9

AIR 2011 SC 1989

Page 19 of 20

usurping the office of the Commissioner in full additional charge. In fact,

as seen from the averments in the affidavit and the annexures filed along

with the affidavit, though the petitioner pleaded that he is the person

interested as per Section 2 (18) of the Act, however, it was depicted as

an adversarial or proxy litigation. In respect of Ex.P1, surrender

proceedings of 5

th

respondent to the Government; Ex.P2 the 3-men

committee report; Ex.P3 communication of Special Commissioner,

Endowments Department to the Principal Secretary; the petitioner did not

whisper, as to how he could secure the said documents. Especially,

Ex.P2, 3-men committee report and Ex.P3 communication, unless the

petitioner explains that they are available in the public domain or they are

part of any affidavit or counter affidavit of an earlier writ petition and he

secured them by a process known to law, normally, the petitioner may not

be in a position to secure those documents. When the petitioner filed

Exs.P1 to P3 along with the writ petition and the entire base of the

petitioner is on those documents, he should have explained in the

affidavit regarding the source and his securing the said document either

by way of Right to Information Act or by any other source known to law.

In the absence of such an averment, in the considered opinion of this

court, the writ petition is nothing short of proxy litigation and someone

else is behind the institution. The petitioner is not competing for the post.

36. As seen from Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the affidavit, the apprehension

of the petitioner is that if the 5

th

respondent assumes full additional

charge of the post of Commissioner, he may misuse his power regarding

enquiry etc., further fortifies that the writ petition is proxy filed at the

instance of another, but not attracts the characteristics of quo warranto.

Page 20 of 20

37. Given the discussion supra, the writ petition lacks every character

to issue, a writ of quo warranto, and, in fact, it is a proxy litigation filed at

the behest of some other. There are no merits in the writ petition and the

same is liable to be dismissed. In the considered opinion of this Court, it

is a classic misuse and abuse of process.

38. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs quantified

at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) payable by the

petitioner to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Amaravati, within

four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner

fails to pay/deposit the amount within the time stipulated, the authority

can recover the amount by following the procedure.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________________

JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

Note: LR Copy to be marked.

B/O

PVD