1 2026:CGHC:4764 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5036 of 2023 Vijay Kumar Das S/o R. B. Das Aged About 47 Years R/o J-78, Sector-02, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Dist.-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner. versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through - Managing Director, Block 7 'A', IInd Floor, Office Complex, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Dist- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Block 7 'A', Iind Floor, Office Complex, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Dist-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 – Smt. Padma Godavarti, Posted as Dy. GM, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Block 7 ‘A’, II nd Floor, Office Complex, Sector 24, Atal Nagar, Dist-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate. For State/ Respondents : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, PL. For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Shri Arpit Parakh appears on behalf of Shri Animesh Tiwari, Advocates. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/01/2026 1. By way of this petition, petitioner is seeking following reliefs:- 10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of quo warranto and oust the respondent no. 5 from the office of Dy.GM in respondent no. 3 corporation. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that the respondent no. 5 was not eligible for holding the post of Account Officer / AGM (Finance) and was usurper to the post of Accounts officer / AGM (Finance) in respondent no. 3 corporation. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order of promotion of respondent no. 5 dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P/11) whereby the respondent no. 5 has been promoted on the post of Dy.GM. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent state authorities to recover the pecuniary benefits granted to the Respondent No.5, while she was holding the post Accounts officer / AGM (Finance) and thereafter Dy.GM. 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner. 2. At the outset, learned State counsel submits that this petition is not maintainable in view of the recent developments by which, Respondent 3 No.5 has been superannuated from the post of Deputy Assistant Manager (Accounts), Chhattisgarh Civil Supplies Corporation. In support of her submission, learned State counsel has placed reliance in the judgment dated 16th June, 1969 passed by the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Puranlal Lakhanpal vs. Dr. P.C. Ghosh and others {1969 SCC OnLine Cal 51}, para 2 & 3 of said judgment reads thus:- “2. So far as the writ of quo warranto is concerned, it is well established that though the immediate object of a writ of quo warranto is to inquire into and determine the authority of a person holding a public office, the relief that can be granted by the Court on such a writ is the ouster of the person proved to be a usurper from the public office in question and that, accordingly, relief by way of quo warranto can be available only so long as the respondent is in actual possession and user of the office in question. 3. As a general rule, therefore, quo warranto to question a person's title to office will not be granted after he has ceased to hold that office (vide Shortt on Informations, p. 146). To this general proposition an exception has, however, been engrafted by judicial decisions that resignation after rule nisi has been issued is no answer to the rule. The obvious reason for this is that a person cannot avoid a decision in a pending proceeding by a unilateral act and the very fact of resignation presupposes that there was an office in which he was acting and, therefore, the real question as to title to so act should be heard (vide R. v. Warlow, (1813) 2 M & S 75: R. v. Blizard, (1866) LR 2 QB 55 at p. 58). Apart from this exception on the ground of resignation, there is no other contingency under which a writ of quo warranto 4 would issue in a case where the respondent has ceased to hold the office, She title to which is challenged.” 3. Learned State counsel would also rely on the order dated 19th November, 2015 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Gwalior in the matter of Rajendra Kumar Agarwal vs. State of M.P. and Others in Writ Appeal No.306/2015. Para 9 of the said order reads thus:- “9. This Court keeping in view the fact that Shri S. B Singh-respondent No.4 before the writ Court was no longer in service and he was retired as far back as on 31/01/2005, has rightly held that no writ of quo warranto can be issued as prayed by the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would not dispute the submission made by counsel for the State. 5. In view of the fact that Respondent No.5 has retired, no writ of quo- warranto can be issued and as such, by the efflux of time, this Petition has become infructuous. 6. Accordingly, it is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash