The High Court of Chhattisgarh has clarified that a writ of quo warranto may be issued only if the appointment to public office is contrary to statutory rules, and the petitioner demonstrates bona fide intent. Allegations unsupported by evidence, or petitions motivated by personal malice, will not justify the issuance of quo warranto. This decision follows and affirms Supreme Court precedent, providing clear guidance on the judicial approach to such writs in service matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/4179/2016 of S.P. Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010023042016 |
| Date of Registration | 26-08-2016 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law / Constitutional Law (Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction) |
| Questions of Law | Under what circumstances is the writ of quo warranto maintainable against a public servant suspected of obtaining appointment by forged documents? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court’s jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto is limited and can only be invoked when an appointment is contrary to statutory rules. Allegations of forged documents must be substantiated with credible evidence. Where the petitioner fails to provide rejoinder or proof, and where mala fide, personal interest, or lack of bona fides is evident, the writ must be refused. The court also held that writ remedy should not be misused for settling personal scores. The duty of utmost good faith (uberrima fides) applies to petitioners seeking public interest writs. Petitions without proven statutory violation or genuine purpose are liable to be dismissed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner alleged respondent’s appointment and promotion as teacher was based on forged certificates. Respondent produced original certificates and denied ever submitting the allegedly forged documents. Petitioner failed to provide evidence or rejoinder, and the dispute was found to be rooted in personal rivalry, as evidenced by mutual complaints and counter-allegations. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in service-related writ petitions invoking quo warranto where mala fide intent is alleged |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Court reconfirms that writ of quo warranto will not be granted unless violation of statutory rules is clearly established.
- Bona fide intent is a prerequisite; petitions motivated by malice, personal rivalry, or lacking good faith will be dismissed.
- Mere allegations of forged documents, without substantiation or rebuttal of respondent’s specific denials, are insufficient.
- Failure to file a rejoinder or to actively refute respondent’s evidence weakens the petitioner’s case for quo warranto.
- Petitioners must act with utmost good faith (uberrima fides) in seeking writs of public interest.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court commenced by setting out the nature, purpose, and scope of the writ of quo warranto, noting that its key function is to prevent usurpation of public offices through investigation into the appointee’s qualifications and authority.
- It examined the factual record, observing that respondent No. 6 had produced authentic certificates—the originals were verified at the time of appointment; the petitioner failed to file any rejoinder or disprove these.
- Relying on Supreme Court precedents (notably B. Srinivasa Reddy), the court emphasized that quo warranto is only maintainable where there is a clear violation of statutory provisions governing appointment.
- The court scrutinized the petitioner’s motive, highlighting mutual complaints and evidence of longstanding personal enmity.
- Citing Arun Kumar Agrawal, it reiterated the necessity for utmost good faith (“uberrima fides”) in PIL or quasi-public interest claims, and that litigation motivated by vendetta is not entitled to discretionary constitutional writs.
- The court concluded that, in absence of proven illegality or statutory breach, and with evident mala fide, no case for quo warranto was made out.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Respondent No. 6 was appointed and promoted on the strength of forged and fabricated mark-sheets.
- Prayed for issuance of writ of quo warranto to oust respondent from service, recovery of salary, and criminal action.
- Cited Supreme Court authorities on validity of appointments and scope of writs.
Respondent No. 6
- Denied ever submitting the allegedly forged documents annexed by the petitioner.
- Produced original mark-sheets of Higher Secondary (1979, MP Board) and Graduation (1990, APS University Rewa) used for employment.
- Stated that all complaints from petitioner were motivated by personal animosity, blackmail attempts, and ongoing rivalry.
- Highlighted mutual complaints, counter-litigation, and the absence of any statutory violation in his case.
State
- Assisted the court; no specific submissions detailed.
Factual Background
The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 6 secured appointment (as Assistant Teacher in 1987) and later promotion (Upper Division Teacher, 2011) through forged educational certificates. The respondent, however, submitted original and valid mark-sheets at the time of document verification, which were recorded in his service book. No credible evidence of forged documents being submitted by the respondent was presented by the petitioner. The record also showed years of mutual complaints and counter-allegations between the parties, indicative of a personal dispute underlying this litigation.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment analyzed Article 226 of the Constitution of India (writ jurisdiction) with specific reference to the writ of quo warranto. It referenced statutory rules concerning public appointments, highlighting that a writ of quo warranto requires a clear violation of these rules.
The court also cited Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the context of police investigation notices but made no further statutory interpretation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions were delivered in this single-judge bench decision.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural guidelines, innovations, or directions were set in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court squarely follows established Supreme Court precedent regarding scope and maintainability of quo warranto writs.