15. Where any such appointments are made, they can be challenged in the court of law. 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 no 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 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 an enquiry as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not. For issuance of writ of quo warranto, the Court has to satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules and the person holding the post has no right to hold it. (Vide: University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao (AIR 1965 SC 491), Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 1213), B.R. Kapur v. State of T. N. (AIR 2001 SC 3435), Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana ((2002) 6 SCC 269), Arun Singh v. State of Bihar ((2006) 9 SCC 375), Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto ((2010) 9 SCC 655) and Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo (2014) 1 SCC 161).
