Quo warranto review is limited to statutory authority and eligibility, not internal administration or recovery for services rendered.

Quo warranto is confined to testing whether a public office exists and whether the incumbent lacks statutory authority or eligibility under the governing scheme. Where an interim arrangement is expressly authorised to run the utility and permit one person to discharge the functions of Chairman and CEO, a temporary charge under that scheme is not invalid merely because the person was not selected as a regular CEO. Internal administration and service regulations outside the scheme do not expand quo warranto review, and remuneration for services actually rendered under a valid interim arrangement is not ordinarily recoverable. On that basis, the impugned writ interference and recovery direction were held unsustainable, and the Commission's arrangement was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of quo warranto and quashing the arrangement by which the Chairman was asked to discharge the functions of CEO of the utility, and in directing recovery of the honorarium paid for such discharge of duties.

Analysis: The relevant enquiry in quo warranto is confined to whether the office is a public office and whether the incumbent lacks legal authority or is otherwise ineligible under the governing statute or rules. The Scheme framed under Section 22 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowered the Commission to make interim arrangements to secure operation of the utility when no purchase took place, and the amended Scheme specifically permitted the functions of Chairman and CEO to be discharged by one person when needed. The Chairman was not appointed as a regular CEO through the selection process, but was given temporary charge under the Scheme. The Court further held that the High Court exceeded the limits of quo warranto by examining considerations of internal administration, service regulations that did not govern the Scheme-based arrangement, and by treating the honorarium as salary for dual posts. The direction for recovery was also held unsustainable because service was actually rendered and such recovery would be inconsistent with the legal effect of a quo warranto declaration.

Conclusion: The writ of quo warranto and the recovery direction were unsustainable, and the arrangement made by the Commission was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In a quo warranto proceeding, the court may strike down an appointment only where the incumbent's holding of the office is contrary to statutory authority, and it cannot direct recovery of remuneration for services actually rendered under a validly operating interim arrangement authorised by the governing scheme.

---