In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply, the Supreme Court of India held that “the High Court, in exercising its written jurisdiction in such a case, must determine from the outset whether a case has been identified for the issuance of a quo warranto order. The High Court`s jurisdiction to issue a quo warranto order is limited and can only be waived if the appointment is contrary to law. Quo warranto pleadings of the reigns of Edward I, Edward II and Edward III were published by the Record Commission in 1818. [13] Quo warranto applications do not “dismiss” anyone from office if they are accepted – they declare the appointment itself null and void from the outset, meaning that the office was never exercised lawfully, as it was declared taken under false pretenses. [26] This is exactly what happened in the highly controversial quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno. Sereno served as de facto chief justice of the Philippines from 2012 to 2018 and regular associate judge since August 2010, when she was appointed by President Benigno Aquino III. Instead of removing Sereno from office through the impeachment mechanism, Callida chose to use what one judge called this “less traveled path” of the quo warranto. The statutes describing the quo warranto usually indicate, where applicable. Normally, consideration should be given to whether there is an abuse of a public office or authority. For example, it could be used to challenge the unauthorized practice of a profession such as law or medicine. In such situations, the challenge is that the defendant is not qualified to hold the position she claims – for example, a physician.
A court case in which a person`s right to hold office or the privilege of the government is challenged. Although in most jurisdictions the quo warranto appeal is pursued by a prosecutor, it is generally considered a civil rather than a criminal measure. Quo warranto is often the only correct remedy; However, the legislature may enact laws or provide for other forms of redress. In B.R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr, the Supreme Court of India held that “Quo Warranto is a statement directed against the person who, in the opinion of the rapporteur, has no right to hold office of a public nature and is merely a usurper of the office. It is the person against whom the writ of quo warranto is directed who must prove by what authority that person is entitled to hold office. » QUO WARRANTO, appeal.
By what authority or order. The name of a statement issued on behalf of a government against a person or entity usurping a franchise or office and directing the county sheriff to summon the defendant to appear before the court that issued the writing at a time and place to show that it claims “quo warranto” the franchise or office referred to in the complaint. Former Nat. Br. 149; 5 wheat. 291; 15 Fair 125; 5 hams. 358; 1 Miss 115. 2. This application lapsed because it gave way to information in the manner of a common law quo warranto. Ang. on Corp. 469; it is allowed in Pennsylvania by legal sanction.
Law of 14 June 1836. See 1 vern. 156; Yelv. 190; 7 Com. Dig. 189; 17 wines. From. 177. 3. Information having the character of a quo warranto, although criminal proceedings are formal, they are essentially civil proceedings. 1 Serg. & Rawle, 382.
Ohio passed a quo warranto law in 1838. Sanctions for abuse of the charter included removing corporate privileges or even breaking the charter. Companies have been convicted in many cases of quo warranto. [18]:42 Standard Oil established a trust in 1882, circumventing state laws against a company that owned shares in another company. Ohio Attorney General David K. Watson sought to revoke Standard Oil`s charter. [18]:49 The Ohio Supreme Court ruled against Standard Oil`s confidence, but retained its charter in 1892. After Ohio filed a contempt of court complaint in 1898 for contempt of trust, Standard Oil moved to New Jersey until its dissolution in 1911.
[18]:50 In law, particularly in English and American common law, the quo warranto (medieval Latin for “by what mandate?”) is a prerogative that obliges the person to whom it is addressed to demonstrate what authority he or she has for the exercise of a right, power or choice that he or she claims to possess. Quo warranto is also used, with a slightly different effect, in the Philippines. In University of Mysore and Anr vs C.D. Govinda Rao And Anr, the Supreme Court of India noted that the quo warranto procedure gives the judiciary a weapon to prevent the executive from making appointments to public office contrary to law and to protect a citizen from deprivation of public service. to which he is entitled.