Administrative lawQuo warrantoPatna High Court

Jamalpur Arya Samaj v Dr D. Ram

AIR 1954 Pat 29719541 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The Vice-President of the Jamalpur Arya Samaj petitioned the Patna High Court for a writ of quo warranto against members of the Working Committee of the Bihar Rajya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, and for orders cancelling their election of 9 August 1953 and the President's order of 28 July 1953 superseding the Jamalpur branch for six months. The petitioner had also filed a civil suit before the Munsif, Patna, challenging the convention and election.
Issue
Whether a writ of quo warranto or certiorari under Article 226 lay against the office bearers of the Arya Samaj's provincial body.
Held
The petition was dismissed with costs. The Arya Samaj is in the position of a domestic tribunal whose rules are a contract among its members, so the proper remedy is a suit, not a writ; Article 226 provides a public law remedy for the vindication of public rights. Quo warranto applies only to offices of a public and substantive nature created by statute or charter, and the members of the Working Committee did not hold an office of a public character.
Principle
Quo warranto lies only in respect of an office of a public and substantive nature created by statute or charter; writs under Article 226 are public law remedies and do not lie against a domestic body whose authority rests on contract
Cite this

Facts

  • The Vice-President of the Jamalpur Arya Samaj petitioned the Patna High Court for a writ of quo warranto against members of the Working Committee of the Bihar Rajya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, and for orders cancelling their election of 9 August 1953 and the President's order of 28 July 1953 superseding the Jamalpur branch for six months. The petitioner had also filed a civil suit before the Munsif, Patna, challenging the convention and election.

Issue

  1. Whether a writ of quo warranto or certiorari under Article 226 lay against the office bearers of the Arya Samaj's provincial body.

Held

  • The petition was dismissed with costs. The Arya Samaj is in the position of a domestic tribunal whose rules are a contract among its members, so the proper remedy is a suit, not a writ; Article 226 provides a public law remedy for the vindication of public rights. Quo warranto applies only to offices of a public and substantive nature created by statute or charter, and the members of the Working Committee did not hold an office of a public character.

Ratio decidendi

A writ of quo warranto does not lie to test the election of office bearers of a private, contract-based body, because they do not hold a public office created by statute or charter.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Negative illustration for ADM-5.4; pair with University of Mysore v C.D. Govinda Rao to define a public office by contrast. The Indian Kanoon text reads "Article 223" and "Article 228" in two places; the judgment quotes Article 226(1) and the context shows these are misprints for Article 226.

Cite this

Citation

Jamalpur Arya Samaj v Dr D. Ram AIR 1954 Pat 297

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/529616/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.