CENTRAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UTILITY OF ODISHA versus DHOBEI SAHOO & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 14 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 01-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 14 S.C.R. 621 
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UTILITY OF ODISHA 
v. 
DHOBEI SAHOO & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9872 of 2013) 
NOVEMBER 01, 2013 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Writs - Writ of quo waffanto - Scope and ambit of - Duty 
of the Court while dealing with a writ of quo waffanto - Held: 
A 
B 
Jurisdiction of the High Court while issuing a writ of quo C 
warranto is limited and can only be issued when the person 
holding the public office lacks the eligibility criteria or when 
the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules - While 
dealing with the writ of quo warranto another aspect has to be 
kept in view - In filing a writ of quo waffanto, the principle of D 
doctrine of delay and /aches should not be allowed any play 
because the person holds the public office as a usurper and 
such continuance is to be prevented by the Court - The Court 
is required to see that the larger public interest and the basic 
concept pertaining to good governance are not thrown to the 
E 
winds - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.226. 
Service Law - Appointment - Quashing of - Appel/ant-
CE SU, a deemed licensee under the Electricity Act for 
distribution of electricity in the Central Zone of Odisha - 5th 
F 
respondent, a retired officer, and Chairman of CESU, further 
asked to function as CEO of CESU and accordingly given a 
consolidated honorarium - Public interest litigation praying for 
issue of writ of "quo warranto" for quashing the order of the 
Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission entrusting the 
functions of CEO of the CESU to 5th respondent - High Court G 
quashed appointment of respondent No. 5 and further directed 
the appellant to recover the amount paid to 5th respondent 
towards honorarium - Justification - Held: Not justified - High 
621 
H 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Court erroneously opined that it was an appointment - It was 
only a contract appointment to choose a highly qualified and 
skilled person - High Court, instead of appreciating the 
eligibility of the 5th respondent, adverted to the concept of 
internal administration of CESU - Reasons ascribed by the 
B 
High Court to quash the arrangement unacceptable - Once 
the decision of the High Court, that Respondent no. 5 could 
not have been allowed to remain in-charge of CEO, was 
dislodged, as a logical corollary the direction for recovery gets 
annulled - Electricity Act, 2003 - s.22 - Central Electricity 
c Supply Utility of Orissa (Operation and Management) 
Scheme, 2006. 
Service Law - Appointment - Nullification of, by issue of 
a writ of quo warranto - Recovery of salary or honorarium -
Permissibility- Held: Even while issuing a writ of quo warranto, 
D there cannot be any direction for recovery of sum - While 
exercising power for issue of writ of quo warranto, the Court 
only makes a public declaration that the person holding the 
public office is a usurper and not eligible to hold the post and 
after the declaration is made he ceases to hold the office -
E 
Till declaration is made, the incumbent renders service and 
when he has rendered service he cannot be deprived of his 
salary - Denial of pay for the service rendered tantamounts 
to forced labour which is impermissible - Asking someone 
to work and when his appointment is nullified by issue of a 
F 
writ of quo warranto by the Court, neither the employer can 
recover the amount nor the Court can direct for recovery of 
the same. 
Appellant-CESU (Central Electricity Supply Utility of 
G Odisha) is a deemed licensee under the Electricity Act, 
2003 for distribution of electricity in the Central Zone of 
Odisha. It was created under Section 22 of the Electricity 
Act, 2003 passed by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory 
Commission. The Commission formulated Central 
Electricity Supply Utility of Orissa (Operation and 
H Management) Scheme, 2006 for 
O~eration and 
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UTILITY OF 
623 
ODISHA v. DHOBEI SAHOO 
Management of CESU. 5th respondent, a retired officer, 
A 
and Chairman of CESU, further asked to function as CEO 
of CESU and accordingly given a consolidated 
honorarium. 
Respondent No. 1 and another filed a public interest 
litigation praying for issue of writ of "quo warranto" for 
quashing of the order of the Commission entrusting the 
functions of CEO of the CESU to the 5th respondent. The 
High Court quashed the appointment of respondent No. · 
8 
5 and further directed the appellant to recover the amount C 
paid to the 5t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.