The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench has dismissed a writ petition seeking quo warranto against the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) of Manganese Ore India Limited (MOIL), holding that the CMD post does not constitute a ‘public office’ for the purpose of issuing a writ of quo warranto.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Raj D. Wakode held that merely because MOIL is a Central Public Sector Enterprise, has majority Government shareholding and operates under the administrative control of the Ministry of Steel, the post of its CMD cannot be treated as a public office.
The petition was filed by MOIL Janshakti Mazdoor Sangh, challenging the appointment of the sixth respondent as CMD of MOIL and seeking a writ of quo warranto. The appointment followed a selection process undertaken by the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB). The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet approved the proposal on January 6, 2026, following which the President of India appointed the respondent as CMD on January 7, 2026, until his superannuation on August 31, 2030, or until further orders.
The petitioner alleged that complaints concerning corruption involving senior officials of the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) had been lodged and that the respondent was among the persons accused. It was further alleged that the Lokpal had directed the CBI to conduct a probe. The petitioner relied upon vigilance reports alleging that senior SAIL officials had misused their official positions to favour Avon Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., causing an alleged loss of approximately ₹263–370 crore to SAIL.
The petitioner contended that the appointment violated various service norms, the Lokpal’s orders, the Consolidated Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for CPSEs, the Whistle Blower Policy, the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, the Fraud Prevention Policy and the Government Guidelines regarding Board Level Appointments in Central Public Sector Enterprises, 2017. It was also argued that mandatory requirements relating to vigilance clearance, APARs and approvals by the CVC, CVO, PESB and ACC had allegedly not been complied with.
The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. He argued that a writ of quo warranto can be issued only where the post is a public office and the person occupying it is a usurper without legal authority. According to the Union, the petitioner had failed to establish that the MOIL CMD post was created by the Constitution, a statute or legislative authority, or that the office involved the exercise of any sovereign governmental power.
The High Court reiterated that quo warranto is concerned with the legality of an appointment, not the suitability or merit of the appointee. The Court noted that its inquiry is limited to determining whether the office is a public office, whether the appointment was made by the competent authority and whether statutory prescriptions governing the appointment were followed.
The Bench explained that a public office is one created and conferred by law, involving the exercise of some portion of the sovereign functions of the Government for public benefit. A mere public duty or employment with a government-linked entity does not, by itself, convert a post into a public office for purposes of quo warranto.
Applying these principles, the Court observed that although MOIL is a Central Public Sector Enterprise in which the Union Government holds 53% of the shares, and its CMD is formally appointed through the Government’s selection and approval mechanism, these circumstances alone do not make the CMD post a public office.
The Court particularly noted that the petitioner could not identify any statute under which the CMD’s appointment was made. It further held that MOIL is a Government company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and is not a creature of statute. Importantly, the Bench found that MOIL does not discharge any sovereign function. Consequently, its CMD cannot be regarded as holding a public office amenable to a writ of quo warranto.
The Court also clarified that it was not its role in a quo warranto proceeding to independently investigate the qualifications or suitability of the appointee. Since the petitioner failed to establish that the CMD post was a public office, the writ petition was held to be not maintainable.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, discharged the Rule and made no order as to costs.
