1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUAR TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI 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 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Endowments) Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Vigilance. 1V1) Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 4. The Commissioner, Endowments department Gollapudi, Vijayawada. 5. K. Ramachandra Mohan, S/o Venkatanarayana Murthy, aged about 58 years, R/o 407, Siri Enclave, Jakkampudi canal road, Vijayawada, NTR district. 6. Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy devasthanam Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam. Rep. by its Executive Officer. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of QUO WARRANTO against the 5*^ respondent calling upon him to quit the office of Full Additional Charge Commissioner, Endowments, appointed pursuant to GO. Rt. No. 37 dated one of % 24.01.2025 issued by the Revenue (Endowments. I) Department, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of provision of AP Charitable and Hindu Religious . Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and contrary to Articles 14, 25 and of Constitution of India and consequently COMMAND the respondent ; of^ials No. 1 and 2 not to continue the 5*^ respondent to function in the endowments department untill completion of the enquiry by the 3rd respondent proceedings in Proc. No. E1/COE-15021/152/2019/2021 dated 29.06.2021, in the interest of justice. (Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 30.01.2025 vide lA No.3 of 2025 in W.P.No.1770 of 2025.) lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to SUSPEND the operation of proceedings in U.O.Note No. 268871/SC.A/A1/2025 dated 21.01.2025 issued by the 1 respondent appointing the 5*^^ respondent to the post of Commissioner, Endowments, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DIRECT the 5*^ respondent to surrender his services before the government until completion of the enquiry by the 3 respondent in view of the severe illegalities committed by him, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner ;SRI. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1 to 4 & 6: SMT PRANATHI, SPL. GP Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI BODDULURI SRINIVASA RAO St rd The Court made the following ORDER: N \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION No.1770 of 2025 Between: V V RAMANA MURTHY, S/0 CHALAPATI RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 28-306, CIRCLEPETA, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA YEARS, R/0 DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND BY ITS CHIEF VELAGAPUDI, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, qpprftARY AMARAVATI AND 5 OTHERS. ...RESPONDENTS. 28.02.2025 DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the order? Whether the copy of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the order? 1. Yes/No 2. Yes/No 3. Yes/No * 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/0 CHALAPATl RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 R/0 28-306, CIRCLEPETA, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA YEARS, DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARY, AMARAVATI AND 5 OTHERS. ...RESPONDENTS. : Sri Turaga Sai Surya ! Counsel for Petitioners : Smt.S.Pranati, Spl. GP Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri Counsel for Respondents < Gist; > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1) AIR 1961 AP250 2) 1963 see Online SC 15 ; AIR 1965 SC 491 3) (2003) 4 see 712 4) (2006) 11 see 731 5) (2014) 1 see 161 6) (2018) 6 sec 162 7) 2024 Supreme (Online)(AP) 3777 8) AIR 1988 SC 2181 9) AIR 2011 SC 1989 This Court made the following: ■■■■'-SSI 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 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1770/2025 THE Between: ...PETITIONER V V Ramana Murthy AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others 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 above Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Quo warranto against the respondent calling upon him to quit the office of Full Additional Charge of Commissioner, Endowments, appointed in The pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.37 respondent, since the & 26 of the Constitution of India. dated 24.01.2025 iissued by the contrary to Articles 14 25 appointment was made 2. The petitioner who claims to be Swamy, filed the in brief, are that the 5‘^ a staunch devotee of above writ petition, respondent joined as in the year 2000 Varahalakshmi Narasimha Sri Averments, in the affidavit, i Assistant Commissioner i in the Endowments Department presently working as Additional Commissioner Executive Officer of Sri Varahalakshmi 04.07.2007 to 01.09.2008 and is -II. He served as the Narasimha Swamy Temple from and from 02.03.2013 to 18 08 2019 Ho oi worked as the Executive Officer of Sri MANSAS Trust about 4 Vizianagaram for years in different points of time. During his tenure, the irregularities. The 4*1" respondent surrendered committed several i respondent him to the E1 /COE 15021/152/2019/2021 committee is committee submitted Government vide proceedings Later, a 3-men The 3-men No. dated 29.06.2021. appointed to iinquire into the illegalities, a report dated 16.07.2021 to the Commissioner pointing out irregularities/illegalities Thereafter, the Government i committed by the 5‘^ respondent. issued G.O.Ms.No.494 Revenue suspending the 5^^ (VIG.IV) Department dated 06.08.2021 enquiry. The 5‘^ respondent, pending of 2021. An interim respondent filed W.P. No. 18251 suspension of the suspension The 5'*^ proceedings on 06.01.2022 was granted, respondent was reinstated as Additional Commissioner-ll of the Endowments Department. The 1®‘ I dated 21.01.2025 respondent issued U.O.Note NO.2688771/SC.A/A1/2025 requesting the 2^^ in charge to the post of Later, by way of respondent to place the 5*1^ Commissioner, Endowments respondent as i until further orders. amendment the appointment of the 5**^ respondent as Commissioner, Endowments, full additional charge, was assailed. Heard Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 4 & 6 and Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for 5 respondent. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4 & 6 and Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for 5 respondent reported no counter. 3. th to th Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 5 5. respondent who was suspended for committing irregularities and of the 3-men committee report dated in pursuance illegalities, 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 Bench of this Court, the 5^^ respondent managed the Coordinate respondents 1 to 3 and was reinstated as Additional Commissioner-11. The reinstatement of the 5*^ respondent as Additional Commissioner-11 itself is an abuse of process and further placing the respondent, as incharge. Commissioner, Endowment is nothing but perpetuating an illegality. 6. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4 & 6 and Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for 5 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 respondent appointment as incharge of the post of Commissioner, respondent was appointed as Additional th th th Endowments. The 5 Commissioner-11 by G.O.Rt has been No.186 dated 21.03.2022 and since then he submit that the discharging the duties, petitioner is qualified to be that the writ petitioner They would also appointed. Learned failed to point out counsel would point out any disqualification of 5*'^ respondent to be Commissioner, Endowments itself is not appointed as an incharge to the and would submit the maintainabie. They would also no locus to file the writ petition. post of the writ of quo warranto submit that the petitioner has 7. Now, the points for 1) Whether the petition? consideration are; petitioner had the locus to file the writ 2) Whether the S*'’ hold the respondent suffered oner, any disqualification to Endowments, full post of Commissi additional charge, Pradesh Charitable as per the provisions of the Andhra and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987? 8. Shorn of all details, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner’s petitioner’s interim order dated of 2021 and as Additional Commissioner-ll appointment as Assistant Commissioner i suspension vide G.O.Rt.No.494 06.01.2022 i in the year 2000; dated 06.08.2021- i in I.A.N0S.2 & 3 of 2021 Iin W.P.No.18251 thereafter, the petitioner’s reinstatement videG.O.Rt.No.186 dated 21. 03.2022. 9. The 1®‘ respondent issued U.O Note dated 21.01.2025 . (Endowments) Department Pondent, Additional Commissio Commissioner (Ex.P8) requesting the Revenue to place the 5‘^ ner as in charge of the post of the Thereafter, Endowments, until further orders. Page 5 of 18 G.O.Rt.No.37 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department dated 24 01 2025 was issued keeping the 5" respondent in Full Additional Charge to the post of Commissioner, Endowments The Locus Standi, of the petitioner needs to be considered oremost, before proceeding further. The answer to the said question is no longer res integra. until further orders. 10. 11. In Mocherla Venkataraya Sarma Vs. Division Bench of the Y.Sivarama Prasad', the composite High Court regarding maintainability writ of quo warranto by a third party/relator observed of thus; 11. • •■At the outset, theory propounded we must say that we cannot accede to the on behalf of the Government that the relator having no personai interest in the matter could not exhibit information against the Chairman this and the Vice-Chairman. It is petitioner has no locus Court for this purpose. In argued on behalf of the Government that the standi to seek the jurisdiction of the 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 who is disqualified to hold not legally entitled to hold Court that a person an office is still holding it. A person who is 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 and a substantive office not merely the office be of a public nature AIR 1961 AP 250 function or employment of pleasure of others. The test a Deputy or servant held at the will and to be applied is whether there has beer, a public nature and an office substantive an office independent in title.” usurpation of and office of in character, that is 12. Therefore, it iIS competent for a voter or a member of the local bodies to invoke information any of court for the issue of the jurisdiction of this '0 the nature of quo warranto Consequently Whi.h > ■ . ®"tortained by this Court for which Its jurisdiction is invoked. the proceedings could be the purpose for 13. This leads us to the question whether the i court Should be exercised in a case like this As ■ndal, C.J. in deciding whether the information Whether the rule should be been usurpation of jurisdiction of this pointed out by should be refused granted, the test is whether there has an office; in other words or whether there is a legal against a person disability to hold the office by occupying a particular place. a legal prohibition or 12. Thus, given the considered opinion of this Court warranto and got locus. The first ooi expression of the Division Bench, in the can maintain a writ of point is answered in the affirmative. the petitioner QUO 13. Before proceeding further, let this Court examine the qualification for appointment of the Commissioner prescribed in Chapter-11 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable Endowments Act, 1987 the and Hindu Religious (for short “the Act”) and the Religious Institutions Institutions and Andhra Pradesh and Endowments Service Charitable and Hindu Rules, 2002 (for short “the Rules ')■ 14. Section 3 of the Additional Commissioner, Act deals with appointing Commissioner, Regional Joint Commission Deputy er Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, that subject to the a Commissioner etc. to Section 3 (1) prescribes provisions of section 4, the Government shall appoint exercise the powers and perform the functions conferred on or entrusted to them by or under this Act. Section 3 (2) the Additional Commissioner etc., exercising the powers and performing prescribes that the Commissioner, appointed under sub-section (1) the functions as aforesaid im respect of religious institutions or endowments, shall be a person professing Hindu religion and shall to exercise those powers and perform those functions profess that religion. Section 3 (3) prescribes that the service conditions of the officers appointed under sub-section (1), shall be such determined by the Government. Section cease when he ceases to as may be 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 Commissioner etc. Section 4 (1) (a extracted below: appointment of b, c & d), which is relevant is (1) A person to be appointed as the Commissioner, shall be who is holding or has held a post of the District Collector post not lower in rank than that of a District Collector i Other service in the State; or one- (a) or a in any (b) who IS holding or has held a post in the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service; who has at least ten or (c) years practice as an Advocate of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh or of the Supreme Court; who has been holding or (d) Ibe&ost of Additional Commissioner (emphasis is mine) 1 16. The Government i Department dated 08.05.2002 issued G.O.Ms.No.245 Revenue (ENDT.1) and Hindu Rule 3 Rule 2 posts. Class-I, The method of IS prescribed in Column No.4, which the Andhra Pradesh Charitable Religious Institutions and Endowments deals with appointing authority deals with constitutions i. Service Rules, 2002. and the method of appointment, e. Classes and Categories of Category-1 is the post of the Commissioner, appointment of the Commissioner i reads thus; (I) By appointment of r post of District Collector District Collector in By appointment of a person who is holding or has held a - or a post not below the rank of any other Service in the State or (ii) a person who is holding or has held a post in the Andhra Pradesh Higher Judicial By appointment of Service; or a person who has at least 10 (iii) years of practice as an advocate in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh Or the Supreme Court of India By promotion from the or (iv) category of Addl. Commissioner (Category-ll of Class-I) 17. Thus, a combined reading of Sections 3 of the Rules, eligible to be appointed 3 and 4 of the Act and Rule Commissioner is person shall be a a person holding the post of Additional as the Commissioner and that person professing Hindu religion and shall cease to exercise those he ceases to profess that prescribes that the Commissioner shall powers and perform those functions when religion. Section 7 of the Act be a corporate sole and shall have and may sue or be sued in his perpetual succession and common seal corporate name. Section 8 of the Act deals with the powers and functions Commissioner. of the Commissioner and Additional 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. That being the scenario, the 5**^ 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*^ respondent, once, is qualified, and further not disqualified, whether the writ of quo warranto can be issued needs further probe. 19. BRIEF HISTORY OF WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO 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*'^ 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”. 20. Page 10 of 18 21. In U.K., injunctions may be granted to restrain in offices to which they are not entitled. Before 1938, persons from acting any information like quo warranto could be laid by the Attorney General to determine whether or private prosecutor 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 an office of a public nature and of a person's action in a permanent character which is held under the Crown or created by statute for such an injunction injunction/review. FORSYTH). or Royal Charter. The application can only be made by way of judicial (Administrative Law by HWR WADE & C.F. 22. Learned author P.P. Craig in his book “Administrative Law” while dealing with quo warranto says “An information like until 1938, the procedure by which challenged public office were made. In 1938 quo warranto was to the usurpation of a information like quo warranto was (The Administration of Justice now Section 30 of the Supreme the action however, remained the abolished and replaced by the injunction. [Miscellaneous Provisions] Act, 1938 Court Act, 1981). The substance of same and the old rule still altered. governing only the form of the remedy was 23. Corpus Juris Secundum defined proceeding in the nature thereof i quo warranto as "quo warranto - 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 is being unlawfully held and relator is entitled to that office”. exercised by the respondent and that the 24. WHARTON'S LAW LEXICON, quo warranto is writ issuable out of the Queen's Bench, in the nature of writ of right, for the Crows quo warranto has been defined as against him who claims or usurps any office, authority he supports his claim in franchise or liberty, to enquiry by what order to determine the right. It also lies i of a franchise in case of non-use or long neglect 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. Apex Court held thus; Govinda Rao', the Hon’ble 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 before a writ could issue in such proceedings. to be satisfied As Halsbury has observed [Halsbury's laws of England, 3 Edn. Vol., II, p, 145]: An information in the nature of a quo warranto took the place of the obsolete writ of quo warranto which lay against 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.” a person who Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive I' 1963 see OnLine Se 15 : AIR 1965 Se 491 public office, or franchise, right he holds the said office to the finding that the holder or liberty, is called upon to show by what franchise or liberty; if the inquiry leads of the office has no valid title to it, the In other issue of the writ of quo words, the procedure authority on the judiciary to making appointments to public provisions; it also protects office to which he warranto ousts him from that office, of quo warranto confers jurisdiction control executive action in the matter of against the relevant a citizen from being deprived may have a right. It would and statutory of public thus be seen that if these proceedings in that behalf, they tend are adopted subject to the conditions to protect the public from recognised 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 . and in such quo warranto is person entitled a citizen the connivance of the executive or with its active help oases, fr the jurisdiction of the courts to issue writ of usurper can be ousted and the properly invoked, the to the post allowed to occupy it. It is thus clear that before can claim a writ of quo warranto that the office i he must satisfy the in question is a public office court, inter alia. and is held by usurper without legal authority and that necessarily leads to the appointment of the said alleged made in accordance with law enquiry as usurper has been to whether the or not. 26. •n High Court Panchayae, the Hon'ble Apex Court Of Gujarat Vs. held thus; Gujarat Kishan IVIazdoor ‘22. The High Court i in exercise of its writ jurisdiction i IS required to determine at the case has been made out for i in a matter of this nature i outset as to whether a issuance of a writ of certiorari jurisdiction of the High Court to i or a writ issue a writ of of quo warranto. The i ^ (2003)4 see 712 If' 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].)” In B.Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn'^., the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: 27. ‘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 correctness of the action and that a third party has no locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action. Further, it declared that public law declaration would only be made at the or was \2006) 11 SCC 731 t behest of petitioner.” a public-spirited person coming before the court as a 28. The Hon ble Apex Court in Central Electricity Supply utility Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo'. 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 holding the public office lacks appointment is contrary to the person or when the apart, the j service the eligibility criteria statutory rules. That concept of locus standi which is strictly applicable to jurisprudence for the purpose of correctness of the action should canvassing the legality not be allowed to have for such allowance Is likely to exceed the limits of Which is impermissible. The basic or any entry, quo warranto 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 harati Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka*, held that the writ of arranto cannot be issued, unless the Court is satisfied that the incumbent was not eligible at all warranto in quo P®*' statutory provisions for being appointed or elected to the public office ^ disqualification to continue i as or that he/she has incurred in the said office, which satisfaction should be founded on the indisputable facts. 30. Court !h Apex Court, the jurisdiction of the High Court is linrited and a writ can be issued when an appointment is made contraiy to the statutory rules and the '(2014) 1 see 161 '(2018) 6 see 162 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 appointment is contrary to statutory rules. The basic the 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*^ 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, only disqualification, as seen from the 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‘^ respondent was placed under suspension vide Ex.P4, in pursuance of, Ex.P2 report. Thereafter the 5*^ 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*^ 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'*^ respondent to hold the post of Commissioner, Endowments in full additional charge. Page 16 of 18 33. ft is apposite to mention here filed seeking that originally the writ the petitioner one to quo warranto by filing I.A.No.3 was ordered on 30.01.2025. petition was sought a writ of Mandamus and later, amendment concerning the prayer of 2025. The said petitioner 34. The pieadings in the writ petition piay issue. This Court emphasized the i Thriveni Vs. State of Andhra in Bharat Singh and others Narmada Bachao Andolan Singh's case, the Hon'bie Apex Copri observed a vital role in deciding the - importance of pleadings in Yenuganti Pradesh^, by relying upon the expression and others* and and another^ In Bharat thus; Vs. State of Haryana Vs State of M.P. 13. where a point which i be substantiated by facts, the petitioner, must plead and IS ostensibly a point of law is required to party raising the point, if he is the writ prove such facts by evidence which appear from the writ petition and if he i must is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence i support of such facts is not annexed to the counter affidavit as the in writ petition or to the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between procedure code and a writ petition of pleading, that a pleading under the Civil a counter affidavit. While in a the facts and a writ petition or in the also the evidence in proof of annexed to it.” a point or a written statement no evidence are required to be pleaded, in counter affidavit not only the facts but such facts have to be pleaded and 35. Thus, at least, there should have regarding the 5'^ been an averment in the affidavit possessing the qualification respondent not and ^ 2024 Supreme (OnlineVAP) 3777 air 1988 SC 2181 ^ " AIR 2011 SC 1989 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 an adversarial or proxy litigation. In respect of Ex.P1 proceedings of 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. as surrender As seen from Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the affidavit, the apprehension of the petitioner is that if the 5*^ 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. 36. Page 18 of 18 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 is liable to be dismissed. In the considered opinion of this Court, it IS a classic misuse and abuse of process. same 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 Senrices 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. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS WP NO. 1770 OF 2025 Rs. Ps. Cost Quantified By Court (That the petitioner is directed to pay a Sum of Rs.25,000/-( Rupees Twenty Five, Thousand Only) to The Secretary, A.P Legal Services Authority, Nelapdu, Guntur District within four weeks. 25,000 - 00 TOTAL 25,000 - 00 SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// FT SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the Hon’ble Sri Justice Subba Reddy Satti (for his Lordship’s kind Perusal) To, 1. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, A.P. High Court Advocates Association, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. The R ^ State Legal Services Buildings, High Court of A P Arr, 4. 9 LR. Copies " " ’ ^^^tur Authority, High Court 5- One CC to SRI. TURAGA 6. One CC to SRI 7. OneCCto SMTS 8. Two CCs to SAI SURYA, Advocate [OPUC] BODDULURI SRINIVASA PRANATHI, SPL. OP FOR SERVICES I, RAO, Advocate fOPUCJ government pleader [OUT] High Court Of Andhra [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies Pradesh. PRK high court DATED:28/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.1770 of 2025 DISMISSING THEW.P. WITH COSTS