A Writ of Quo Warranto is maintainable only if the appointment to a public office is contrary to statutory provisions or the incumbent lacks eligibility. Mere allegations of impropriety or administrative unfitness do not sustain such a writ.

V. V. Ramana Murthy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Writ Appeal No. 291 of 2025
Decided on: 13 November 2025
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Division Bench)
Coram: Justice Battu Devanand & Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

Background

The appellant, V. V. Ramana Murthy, filed a Writ Petition (W.P. No. 1770 of 2025) seeking a Writ of Quo Warranto against the 5th respondent, K. Ramachandra Mohan, questioning his appointment to the Full Additional Charge (FAC) of Commissioner, Endowments Department.

The grievance was that the 5th respondent had earlier been suspended in 2021 for alleged irregularities and that his appointment while proceedings were pending violated Articles 14, 21, and 26 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on 28 February 2025, terming it proxy litigation and imposing ₹25,000/- costs.

The present Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 291 of 2025) challenged that order.

Findings of the Division Bench

1. Eligibility of the 5th Respondent

   • The Court held that the 5th respondent, being an Additional Commissioner, was eligible and qualified to hold Full Additional Charge of Commissioner under Sections 3(2) and 4 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, and Rule 3 of the relevant Rules.

   • His prior suspension having been interimly suspended in W.P. No. 18251 of 2021, there was no subsisting disqualification.

2. Scope of a Writ of Quo Warranto

   • The Court reiterated that Quo Warranto lies only where the holder of a public office lacks eligibility or where the appointment violates statutory provisions.

   • It cannot be used to question the wisdom or discretion of the Government in making an appointment.

3. Proxy Litigation

   • The appellant failed to explain how he obtained the internal documents (Exs. P-1 to P-3) filed with the writ petition.

   • Since these were not public documents nor shown to have been legally procured, and the appellant was not a candidate for the post, the Court agreed that the writ petition was proxy litigation, likely filed at the instance of another.

4. No Ground for Interference

   • The Single Judge’s order was found well-reasoned, and the Division Bench saw no reason to interfere.

Held / Order

• Writ Appeal Dismissed.

• The order of the Learned Single Judge dated 28 February 2025 in W.P. No. 1770 of 2025 was affirmed.

• No order as to costs in the appeal.

Legal Principle Affirmed:

A Writ of Quo Warranto is maintainable only if the appointment to a public office is contrary to statutory provisions or the incumbent lacks eligibility. Mere allegations of impropriety or administrative unfitness do not sustain such a writ.