SHAIKH SALEEM SHAIKH CHANDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                    *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