1. Overview of the Case
This constitutional petition in the nature of quo warranto challenged the legality of the proforma promotion and subsequent reinstatement of a public servant by the Human Settlement Authority. The Court established that where a statute prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be performed in that manner alone.
2. Brief Facts
On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, assisted by counsel for the private respondent No.8 has defended the impugned actions by referring to the service record of the private respondent. At this stage, the learned AAG has, however, referred to a notification dated 20.04.2026, whereby a committee has been constituted under the Chairmanship of the Advisor to the Chief Minister for Human Settlement, Spatial Development and Social Housing Department, ostensibly to examine the matter further.
3. Questions of Law
- Is a writ of quo warranto maintainable when challenging the legality of a public servant's appointment or retention in office?
- Can an administrative authority exercise review jurisdiction to revisit its own final appellate order in the absence of an express statutory provision?
4. The Court’s Answers
Question 1
Is a writ of quo warranto maintainable when challenging the legality of a public servant's appointment or retention in office?
“It is by now a settled principle that a writ of quo warranto is maintainable at the instance of any person, as it is aimed not at enforcing an individual right but at examining the legality of a person’s entitlement to hold a public office.”
Paragraph 8
Question 2
Can an administrative authority exercise review jurisdiction to revisit its own final appellate order in the absence of an express statutory provision?
“In substance, the order has the effect of setting at naught an earlier final determination without any express legal jurisdiction. It is a settled principle that where a statute provides for a particular manner of doing a thing, it must be done in that manner alone.”
Paragraph 13
5. Practical Relevance
A challenge to an administrative or regulatory decision must identify the legal power exercised, any mandatory procedure and the grounds for judicial review. Merely disagreeing with policy or an administrative outcome may not establish a justiciable claim.