The High Court may restrain a person from acting in an office to which he is not entitled, and may also declare the office to be vacant. The writ lies only In respect of a public office of a substantive character.

In G.D. Karkare vs. T.L. Shevde, AIR 1952 Nag. 330, the appointment of the Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh was questioned by Quo-Warranto. An objection was taken that mere a private individual seeking neither enforcement of his fundamental right nor any other legal right cannot ask for quo-warranto.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The High Court held that there was no reason to refuse a citizen under a democratic republican Constitution to move for a writ of quo-warranto for testing the validity of high appointment under the Constitution. On merit, however, it was held that there was no defect in the appointment questioned in the writ.

The writ of quo-warranto can go only to public offices and not to private bodies like the Managing Committee of a school, as has been held in Amrendra vs. Narendra, AIR 1953 Cal. 114.