Writ of quo warranto requires established unlawful usurpation, not conjecture or speculation.

The petitioners claimed ownership of premises at 49/7/A, Purbachal Main Road, corresponding to Premises No. 367/B, where they constructed a two-storied building in 2002.

They alleged that respondent no. 8, a Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) employee and their neighbour, threatened demolition action unless money was paid, resulting in a complaint and departmental proceedings, the outcome of which remained unknown.

In 2020, respondent no. 8 complained of unauthorised construction, following which the Special Officer (Building) passed a demolition order concerning structures allegedly standing on KMC land; its execution was subsequently stayed.

The petitioners later alleged that respondent no. 8 had obtained compassionate appointment after the death of KMC employee Bhabatosh Banerjee, despite allegedly not being his relative or an eligible family member.

They relied principally on a memorandum dated 7 December 2022 stating that respondent no. 8 “might not be an eligible family member” and on an RTI response stating that his birth certificate was unavailable from his personal file.

The petitioners sought termination of respondent no. 8’s appointment and applied to amend the writ petition to include a prayer for a writ of quo warranto.

The KMC contended that the writ petition was a counter-blast to the unauthorised-construction proceedings and noted that a prior public-interest petition had been dismissed.

1. Whether the materials relied upon by the petitioners established that respondent no. 8 had secured compassionate appointment unlawfully so as to warrant an enquiry or termination of his appointment.

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to amend the writ petition to seek a writ of quo warranto against respondent no. 8.

3. Whether the writ petition was maintainable in circumstances suggesting that it had been filed as a counter-blast to demolition proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

The Court applied the principle that a writ petition cannot be sustained on conjecture, surmise, or inconclusive evidence.

It held that a communication issued by an authority lacking appellate jurisdiction over the appointing authority could not, by itself, invalidate an appointment; an expression that a person “might not be” eligible was insufficient to establish illegality.

The Court considered State of Chhattisgarh and Others v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, 2009 (13) SCC 600, but found it distinguishable on facts.

On quo warranto, it relied on University of Mysore and Another v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, AIR 1965 SC 491, which establishes that quo warranto is a technical remedy available where a person holds an independent substantive public office as a usurper without legal authority; the applicant must establish that the appointment was contrary to law.

The Court found that the petitioners had not established, even prima facie, that respondent no. 8 was ineligible for compassionate appointment.

The memorandum dated 7 December 2022 had not been issued by an appellate or otherwise competent authority capable of reviewing the original appointment order, and its tentative language did not conclusively show that the appointment was unlawful.

Similarly, the absence of a birth certificate from the personal file did not justify an inference that respondent no. 8 had concealed or misplaced it.

Since the allegations rested on speculation and the petition appeared connected to demolition proceedings initiated at respondent no. 8’s instance, the Court declined to direct a fresh enquiry or interfere with the appointment.

The same evidentiary deficiencies defeated the proposed claim for quo warranto, which requires proof that the office-holder is a usurper lacking legal authority.

IA No. GA/1/2026, seeking amendment of the writ petition to incorporate the quo warranto relief, was dismissed, and WPO No. 640/2025 was also dismissed.

The petitioners were directed to pay costs of ₹50,000 to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee.