Writ Of Prohibition Case Study

PROHIBITION

Nature and Scope
The following features of the writ of prohibition may be noted:
A writ of Prohibition commands the court or tribunal to whom it is issued to refrain from doing something which it is about to do. It prevents a tribunal possessing judicial and quasi-judicial powers from assuming or threatening to assume jurisdiction which it does not possess. Thus the writ lies both for excess of jurisdiction and absence of jurisdiction.
Prohibition has much in common with certiorari, both in its scope and in the rules by which it is governed. Thus both these writs lie against a judicial or quasi-judicial body but not against an executive body. In Hari VishnuKamath Vs. Ahmed Ishaque , the Supreme Court said : Both the writs of
If the court determines that the incumbent is holding the office in question illegally, it would pass the order of ouster which must be obeyed by him.
"Before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the court that the office i question is an public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the said alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not."
A public office will mean an office in which the public have an interest. If it is a public office a writ can be issued to him to inquire by what authority he supported his claim to the office.
"There is no question of delay in presenting a petition for a writ of quo warranto in which the right of a person to function in a certain capacity is challenged because every day the person so acts in that capacity a fresh cause of action
In Jamalpur Arya Samaj v. D. Ram" ,"the petitioner moved the High Court for issue of a writ in nature of quo warranto against the members of the Working Committee of the Bihar Raj Arya Pratinidhi Sabha - a private religious association. The court refused the writ on the ground that a writ of quo warranto does not lie against an office of a private nature. In R. v. Mousley" , "a writ was refused in respect of the office of the master of a hospital and free school, which institution was a private charitable foundation, and the right of appointment to offices therein was vested in governors who were private and not public functionaries. The writ of quo warranto does not, for the same reason, lie for the purpose of examining the validity of a selection to a fellowship of a college." "Nor does it lie in respect of an office of a surgeon or a physician of a hospital founded by private persons", "nor in respect of the office of a committee member of the Licensed Victuallers' Association" "Similarly, membership of the managing committee of a private school is not an office of a public