*1* 34-wp-11170-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 34 WRIT PETITION NO. 11170 OF 2026 Shaikh Saleem Shaikh Chand VERSUS State Of Maharashtra And Others ... Mr. Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondents/State ... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026 P. C. :- 1. The petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, as the petitioner is seeking writ of quo-warranto against Respondent No. 6, who is appointed in a private college. 2. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of The University of Mysore and Others Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Ors., reported in AIR 1965 SC 491, while considering the maintainability of a writ of quo warranto, has observed in paragraph 8 as under :- “8. 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 Narwade *2* 34-wp-11170-2026 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 3. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in The University of Mysore and Others (supra), since Respondent No.6 is not holding the public post, writ of quo warranto is not maintainable. 4. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and is, accordingly, disposed of. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Narwade