CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DRAFTING PLEADING AND CONVEYANCING

Project Report on:
WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

Submitted to: Dr. B.R.N. SHARMA

Submitted by: Anubhuti Varma
Roll no.-721,
VIII Semester.

Page | 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Apart from the grace of almighty, many people have been profusely generous and helpful
to me in the course of my research tenure; I cannot extend my gratitude in a single direction but will
have to bestow my thanks, blossoms by blossoms, upon a few, if not all persons, who do merit a
special kind of tribute by virtue of their assisting me along the way. In the first place, I feel
tremendously excited in recording my most sincere and profound gratitude to my adroit supervisor
Dr. B.R.N.SHARMA. I would like to make sincere prayer before almighty for him, without his
blessings, invaluable guidance, intellectual inspiration and perpetual encouragement; I could not
have accomplished and presented this work, in the present form. I owe my sincere thanks to Library
staff members of University for their assistance and cooperation to find out the relevant material for
my research.
Anubhuti Varma

2 | Page

Page | 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
OBJECTIVES: The main objects of my study is to discuss the writ of quo warranto along with the
model format of the same as per the rules of conveyancing.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: Doctrinal research methodology has been used. Keeping the
objectives in mind, material was collected with the help of different books and then it was compiled to
make the theoretical part of the project. Secondary sources were also utilized in order to complete the
objective.
RESEARCH TOOLS: The research of this project was carried with the help of the Internet and Library
of Chanakya National Law University.
FOOTNOTING STYLE: In whole of my project uniform footnoting style has been adopted.

3 | Page

Page | 4

Contents
1) Introduction
2) Origin and Concept of Writs
3) Writ of Quo Warranto
4) Writ of Quo Warranto in the Indian Courts
5) Model Format for Filing of Writ of Quo Warranto
6) Conclusion

4 | Page

Page | 5

1. Introduction
In English common law, a writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or
judicial jurisdiction; in modern usage, this body is generally a court. Warrants,prerogative
writs and subpoenas are common types of writ but innumerable forms exist, as listed
in Palgrave's Parliamentary Writs (1827, 1834). In its earliest form a writ was simply a written
order made by the English monarch to a specified person to undertake a specified action; for
example, in the feudal era a military summons by the king to one of his tenants-in-chief to appear
dressed for battle with retinue at a certain place and time. An early usage survives in the United
Kingdom and Canada in a writ of election, which is a written order issued on behalf of the
monarch (in Canada, the Governor General) to local officials (High Sheriffs of every county in
the historical UK) to hold a general election. Writs were used by the medieval English kings to
summon persons to Parliament (then consisting of the House of Lords alone) whose advice was
considered valuable or who were particularly influential, who were thereby deemed to have been
created "barons by writ".1
Under the Indian legal system, jurisdiction to issue 'prerogative writs' is given to the Supreme
Court, and to the High Courts of Judicature of all Indian states. Parts of the law relating to writs
are set forth in the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, the highest in the country, may
issue writs under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and
under Articles 139 for enforcement of rights other than Fundamental Rights, while High Courts,
the superior courts of the States, may issue writs under Articles 226. The Constitution broadly
provides for five kinds of "prerogative" writs: habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo
warranto and prohibition.2

The writ of prohibition is issued by a higher court to a lower court prohibiting it from
taking up a case because it falls outside the jurisdiction of the lower court. Thus, the higher
court transfers the case to itself.

The writ of habeas corpus is issued to a detaining authority, ordering the detainer to
produce the detained person in the issuing court, along with the cause of his or her detention.
If the detention is found to be illegal, the court issues an order to set the person free.

The writ of certiorari is issued to a lower court directing that the record of a case be sent
up for review, together with all supporting files, evidence and documents, usually with the

1 http://www.constitution.org/writ/quo_warranto.htm
2 legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Writ+of+quo+warranto
5 | Page

Page | 6

intention of overruling the judgement of the lower court. It is one of the mechanisms by
which the fundamental rights of the citizens are upheld.

The writ of mandamus is issued to a subordinate court, an officer of government, or a

corporation or other institution commanding the performance of certain acts or duties.

The writ of quo warranto is issued against a person who claims or usurps a public office.
Through this writ the court inquires 'by what authority' the person supports his or her claim.

2. Origin of the Concept of Writs

The development of writs as a means of commencing a court action was a form of "off-the-shelf"
justice designed to enable the English law courts to rapidly process lawsuits by allocating each
form of complaint into a standard category which could be dealt with by standard procedures.
The complainant simply applied to the court for the writ most relevant to his complaint to be sent
to the wrongdoer, which ordered him under royal authority to attend a royal court to answer for
his actions. The development was part of the establishment of a Court of Common Pleas, for
dealing with commonly made complaints by subjects of the crown, for example: "someone has
damaged my property". The previous system of justice at the royal court of Chancery was tailormade to suit each case and was thus highly time-consuming. Thus eventually the obtaining of a
writ became necessary, in most cases, to have a case heard in one of the Royal Courts, such as
the King's Bench or Common Pleas. Some franchise courts, especially in the Counties Palatine,
had their own system of writs which often reflected or anticipated the common law writs. The
writ was "served" on (delivered in person to) the wrongdoer and acted as a command that he
should appear at a specified time and date before the court specified in the writ, or it might
command some other act on the part of the recipient.3
Where a plaintiff wished to have a case heard by a local court, or by an Eyre if one happened to
be visiting the County, there would be no need to obtain a writ. Actions in local courts could
usually be started by an informal complaint. However, if a plaintiff wished to avail himself of
Royal and by implication superior justice in one of the King's courts, then he would need a
3 https://indiankanoon.org/search/?...writ%20of%20quo%20warranto
6 | Page

Page | 7

writ, a command of the King, to enable him to do this. Initially for common law, recourse to the
King's courts was unusual, and something for which a plaintiff would have to pay. For most
Royal Courts, the writ would usually have been purchased from the Chancery, although the court
of the Exchequer, being in essence another government department, was able to issue its own
writs.4
While originally writs were exceptional, or at least non-routine devices, Maitland suggests that
by the time of King Henry II (1154-1189), the use of writs had become a regular part of the
system of royal justice in England.5
At first, new writs were drafted to fit each new situation, although in practice the clerks of the
Chancery would use wording from previously issued writs, with suitable adjustments, often
taken from reference books containing collections of forms of writ, much as in modern times
lawyers frequently use fixed precedents or boilerplate, rather than re-inventing the wording of a
new legal document. The problem with this approach was that a plaintiff's rights and available
forms of action at his disposal, would be defined, and in most cases limited, by the limited
variety of writs available to him. Thus the power to create new writs was akin to the power to
create new rights, a form of extra-parliamentary legislation. Moreover, a writ, if one could be
found fitting the plaintiff's case, provided the legal means to remove the dispute from the
jurisdiction of the local court, often controlled by a lesser noble, and instead have it heard by the
King's judges. The nobility thus saw the creation of new writs as an erosion of their influence.
Over time, opposition to the creation of new writs by the Chancery increased. For example, in
1256 a court was asked to quash a writ as "novel, unheard of, and against reason" (Abbot of
Lilleshall v Harcourt (1256) 96 SS xxix 44). Ultimately in 1258 the King was forced to accept
the Provisions of Oxford, which among other things, prohibited the creation of new forms of writ
without the sanction of the King's council. New writs were created after that time only by the
4 https://www.google.co.in/#q=writ+of+quo+warranto+sample
5 http://www.constitution.org/writ/quo_warranto.htm
7 | Page

Page | 8

express sanction of Parliament and the forms of writ remained essentially static, each writ
defining a particular form of action. It was the role and expertise of a solicitor to select on his
client's behalf the appropriate writ for the proposed legal action. These were purchased from the
court by payment of a fee. A barrister would then be hired by the solicitor to speak for his client
in court.
With the abolition of the Forms of Action in 1832 and 1833, a profusion of writs was no longer
needed, and one uniform writ came into use. After 1852 the need to state the name of the form of
action was also abolished. In 1875 the form of writ was altered so that it conformed more to
the subpoena used in the Chancery. A writ was a summons from the Crown, to the parties to the
action, with on its back the substance of the action set out, together with a 'prayer' requesting a
remedy from the court (for example damages). In 1980 the need for writs to be written in the
name of the Crown was ended. From that time, a writ simply required the parties to appear.
Writs applied to claims that were to be heard in one of the courts which eventually formed part
of the High Court of Justice. The procedure in a County Court, which was established by statute,
was to issue a 'summons'.6
In 1999 the Woolf Reforms unified most of the procedure of the Supreme Court and the County
Court in civil matters. These reforms brought in the Civil Procedure Rules. Under these almost
all civil actions, other than those connected with insolvency, are now commenced by the
completion of a 'Claim Form' as opposed to the obtaining of a 'Writ', 'Originating Application', or
'Summons' (see Rules 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules).
In India, Writs are now constitutionally provided for.

6 https://indiankanoon.org/search/?...writ%20of%20quo%20warranto
8 | Page

Page | 9

3.

Writ of Quo Warranto

Quo warranto (Medieval Latin for "by what warrant?") is a prerogative writ requiring the person
to whom it is directed to show what authority they have for exercising some right or power (or
"franchise") they claim to hold.
writ of quo warranto may be issued against a person holding a public office or governmental
privilege. The issue of summon is followed by legal proceedings, during which an individuals
right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged. The writ requires the concerned
person to explain to the Court by what authority he holds the office. If a person has usurped a
public office, the Court may direct him not to carry out any activities in the office or may
announce the office to be vacant. It is issued to restrain the authority or candidate from
discharging the functions of public office. In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, the Supreme
Court observed that the procedure of quo Warranto confers the jurisdiction and authority on the
judiciary to control executive action in making the appointments to public offices against the
relevant statutory provisions; it also protects a citizen being deprived of public office to which he
may have a right.7
There are two (2) forms of criteria that must be met with any Petition for
Quo Warranto for any Writ to be granted - general and specific. Failure to
meet such criteria automatically renders any writ issued null and void. The
general criteria is summarized by the seven (7) questions below:
Q1. Does the Petition document provide content as answers to all the
essential administrative elements required, in the order required, within the
page limits required and format required?8
Q2. Does the Syllabus of the Petition match in the broadest and general
sense the terms by which such a writ is normally issued?
Q3. Does the Prayer for Relief of the Petition match the conditions of
remedy by which such a writ may be issued?
Q4. Do the Arguments outlined within the Petition match the essential
7www.nationallibertyalliance.org/.../Quo%20Waranto%20filed%203-24-1...
8 http://www.constitution.org/writ/quo_warranto.htm
9 | Page

P a g e | 10

criteria that must be present for such a writ to be issued?

Q5. Do the Arguments within the Petition provide one or more exhibits of
proof contained within the Appendix to the Petition?
Q6. Is there sufficient evidence based on the Arguments and Appendix of
the Petition to conclude that the Respondent is within the Jurisdiction of
the Court?
Q7. Is there sufficient evidence based on the Arguments and Appendix of
the Petition to conclude that the Court has sufficient Jurisdiction and right
to appoint and bond one or more Agents with enforcing the writ?

10 | P a g e

P a g e | 11

4. Writ Under Indian Courts

The makers of the Constitution have adopted the English remedies in the
Constitution under Articles 32 and 226. There has been specifically made provisions
in the Constitution which empowers the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue
writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and
Certiorari. The fundamental rights which are inalienable sacrosanct in nature and
character which were conceived in national and public interest could be illusory if
there is no constitutional machinery provided for its enforcement. Unless such
constitutional remedies for its enforcement is not provided the rights guaranteed by
part III of the Constitution cannot be ever implemented by the citizens. Article 32
contained in Part III is itself a fundamental right given to the person under the
Constitution. Similarly Article 226 of the Constitution is conferred on the High Courts
to exercise its prerogative writs which can be issued against any person or body of
person including the government.9 The distinction between the two remedies is very
negligible. The remedy under Article 32 is confined to enforcement of fundamental
rights whereas Article 226 is available not only against the enforcement of
fundamental rights but also for any other purpose. Thus the constitution provides
the discretionary remedies on the High Court and the Supreme Court. In the
absence of the provisions of such remedies no one can enforce its rights given. Thus
wherever there is a right there must be a remedy for it. Thus it should satisfy the
maxim,
ubi
jus
ibi
remedium. 10
One of the principle makers of the constitution, Dr. Ambedkar has given the prime
importance to Article 32 among all other articles from the Indian Constitution. He
has referred that, It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it .
In Devilal
v.
STO,
it
has
been
marked
that,
There can be no doubt that the Fundamental Rights, guaranteed to the citizens are
a significant feature of our Constitution and the High Courts under Article 226 are
bound
to
protect
these
Fundamental
Rights.
Justice Subbarao in the case of Basheshwar Nath v. Commissioner, Income Tax,
stated
that,
A large majority of people are socially poor educationally backward and politically
yet not conscious of their rights, cannot be pitted against the state or the institution
or they cannot be put on equal status with the state or large organisations. The
people are requires to be protected from themselves. It is therefore the duty of the
9 http://www.constitution.org/writ/quo_warranto.htm
10 https://www.google.co.in/#q=writ+of+quo+warranto+sample
11 | P a g e

P a g e | 12
court to protect their rights and interests. Fundamental rights are therefore
transcendental in nature and created and enacted in national and public interest
and
therefore
they
cannot
be
waived.
In Daryao v. State of U.P. , it was held that the right to obtain a writ must equally be
a fundamental right when a petitioner presents the case. Thus, it cannot merely be
considered as an individuals right to move the Supreme Court but it is also the duty
and responsibility of the Supreme Court to protect the fundamental rights.

Role of writs in administrative actions

Now as far as the role of the writs is concerned, let us go by illustration over the
cases on discretion. Conferment of discretionary powers has been accepted as
necessary phenomena of modern administrative and constitutional machinery. Law
making agency legislates the law on any subject to serve the public interest and
while making law, it has become indispensable to provide for discretionary powers
that are subject to judicial review. The rider is that the Donnie of the discretionary
power has to exercise the discretion in good faith and for the purpose for which it is
granted and subject to limitations prescribed under the Act. The Courts have
retained their jurisdiction to test the Statute on the ground of reasonableness.
Mostly, the courts review on two counts; firstly whether the statute is substantively
valid piece of legislation and, secondly whether the statute provides procedural
safeguards. If these two tests are not found, the law is declared ultra vires and void
of
Article
14
of
the
Constitution.11
Beside this, Courts control the discretionary powers of the executive government
being exercised after the statutes have come to exist. Once they come into
existence, it becomes the duty of the Executive Government to regulate the powers
within limitations prescribed to achieve the object of the Statute. The discretionary
powers entrusted to the different executives of the Government play substantial
role in administrative decision making and immediately the settled principles of
administrative law trap the exercise of powers. If these discretionary powers are not
properly exercised, or there is abuse and misuse of powers by the executives or
they take into account irrelevant consideration for that they are not entitled to take
or simply misdirect them in applying the proper provision of law, the discretionary
exercise of powers is void. Judicial review is excluded when it is found that
executives maintain the standard of reasonableness in their decisions. Errors are
often crept in either because they would maintain pure administrative spirit as
opposed to judicial flavour or that they influence their decisions by some irrelevant
considerations or that sometimes, the authorities may themselves misdirect in law
11 www.nationallibertyalliance.org/.../Quo%20Waranto%20filed%203-24-1...
12 | P a g e

P a g e | 13
or that they may not apply their mind to the facts and circumstances of the cases.
Besides, this aspect, they may act in derogation of fundamental principles of natural
justice by not conforming to the standard or reasons and justice or that they do not
just truly appreciate the existence or non existence of circumstances that may
entitle
them
to
exercise
the
discretion.
The Executive have to reach their decisions by taking into account relevant
considerations. They should not refuse to consider relevant matter nor should they
take into account considerations that are wholly irrelevant or extraneous. They
should not misdirect themselves on a point of law. Only such a decision will be
lawful. The courts have power to see that the Executive acts lawfully. They cannot
avoid scrutiny by courts by failing to give reasons. If they give reasons and they are
not good reasons, the court can direct them to reconsider the matter in the light of
relevant matters though the propriety adequacy or satisfactory character of these
reasons may not be open to judicial scrutiny. Even if the Executive considers it
inexpedient to exercise their powers they should state their reasons and there must
be material to show that they have considered all the relevant facts.
The role of writs is also sensibly laid down in a famous Padfields case:
In England in earlier days the Courts usually refused to interfere where the
Government or the concerned officer passed what was called a non-speaking order,
that is, an order which on the face of it did not specify the reasons for the orders.
Where a speaking order was passed the Courts proceeded to consider whether the
reasons given for the order or decision were relevant reasons. Where there was a
non-speaking order they used to say that it was like the face of the Sphinx in the
sense that it was incurable and therefore hold that they could not consider the
question of the validity of the order. Even in England the Courts have travelled very
far since those days. They no longer find the face of the Sphinx inscrutable. 12

12 www.nationallibertyalliance.org/.../Quo%20Waranto%20filed%203-24-1...
13 | P a g e

P a g e | 14

6. Model Format for Filing of Writ of Quo Warranto

In the High Court of at
Civil Original (Extra-ordinary) Jurisdiction Civil Writ Petition No of
200
In the matter of:
JKL S/o R/o former employee (Inspector Grade-I) in the
RespondentCompany. Petitioner
1. XYZ Company Ltd., a company wholly owned by the Govt. of India and having its
registered office at through its Chairman.
2. Managing Director of the above Company
Respondent

Civil Writ Petition against the order dated passed by the Managing
Director, respondent No. 2 herein, by which the services of the petitioner as an
employee of the respondent-company have been terminated.
May it please the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of and His
Lordship's companion Judges.
The Petitioner
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the petitioner is a citizen of India and is therefore entitled to enjoy all the
rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
2. That respondent No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956
having its registered office at The respondent-company is wholly
owned by the Government of India and is, thus, an instrumentality of state is given
in Annexure 12 of the Constitution.
3. That the petitioner was an employee of the respondent-company, having been
appointed as a Sub-Inspector Grade-I on 1991 and he continued to
work, earning one promotion also.
4. That on 20.. respondent No. 2 herein abruptly issued the
impugned order dated terminating the services of the petitioner and the

14 | P a g e

P a g e | 15
petitioner came to be relieved of his duties the same day. A copy of the impugned
order is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-1.
5. That on a bare reading of the impugned order it becomes clear that the order has
been issued on the basis of some alleged misconduct on the part of petitioner, but
no inquiry under the relevant rules has been held before the passing of the order.
6. That the petitioner has not committed any act that could be termed to be an act
constituting misconduct.
7. The impugned order is being assailed on the following, amongst other,
GROUNDS
7.1 That the petitioner being a permanent employee of the respondent-company his
services could not be terminating without holding an enquiry under the rules
applicable to the employees of the company.
7.2 That the principles of natural justice have been contravened by the respondents
in not giving to the petitioner any opportunity of being heard.
7.3 That the impugned order is otherwise also erroneous and unsustainable, as it
does not contain any reason and is a non-speaking order.
7.4 That the impugned order is arbitrary and contravenes Article 14 of the
Constitution.
7.5
7.6
8. That the petitioner has not filed any petitioner other proceedings relating to the
matter at this petition in any other court.
PRAYER
In the facts and circumstances stated above the petitioner prays that a direction in
the form of a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ be issued quashing
the impugned order and reinstating the petitioner in service with all consequential
benefits including back wages.
It is further prayed that the respondent be burdened with costs.
PETITIONER
THROUGH
DATED

COUNSEL MR.

15 | P a g e

P a g e | 16

5. Conclusion
Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial remedy by which any person,
who holds an independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty, is called upon to show
by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be duly
determined, and in case the finding is that the holder of the office has not title, he would be
ousted from that office by judicial order. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto gives
the Judiciary a weapon to control the Executive from making appointment to public office
against law and to protect a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he has a right.
These proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office, who might be
allowed to continue either with the connivance of the Executive or by reason of its apathy. It
will, thus, be seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to
satisfy the Court that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without
legal authority, and that inevitably would lead to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of
the alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not." It is also beneficial to refer to
the decision of this Court in Ghulam Qadir vs. Special Tribunal and Others, (2002) 1 SCC 33
para 38 which reads thus:At any event implicit in the finding of the Division Bench that the appointing authority has no
right to appeal in Quo warranto proceedings is that the Court cannot probe the mind of the
appointing authority in a motion for Quo Warranto. The High Court erred in probing the mind
of the government and acted contrary to its own finding on the role of appointing authority
inQuo Warranto proceedings. The reasons felt out by the learned Judges of the Division Bench
are not sustainable in law and the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with in these
appeals. The learned Judges are not right in quashing the appointment of the appellant as
Managing Director on the misconception that he has been re- appointed to the said office,
whereas it was a fresh appointment under the provisions of the Act and in accordance with the
prescribed qualification and eligibility under the Act. Further the appointee holds the office
during the pleasure of the Government as provided under Section 6(1) of the Act. The learned
Judges are not correct in holding that the Government is not affected by allowing the writ
of QuoWarranto against the appointee and observed that the Government ought not have filed
the appeal. It is unfortunate that the learned Judges have observed that the Government has filed
the appeal at the instance of the appointee. The learned Judges, in our opinion, failed to

16 | P a g e

P a g e | 17

appreciate that it is the duty of the Government to justify the appointment as such there is no
wrong in filing the writ appeal.

17 | P a g e