Report No. 58
(e) Quo warranto- Each of the three High Courts of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay had jurisdiction to issue this writ within the limits of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The jurisdiction has been assumee10 or discussed11-12 in several cases.
The doubts that were thrown on this subject by one of the Privy Council decisions13 were mainly in relation to exercise of the jurisdiction where the subject-matter of the dispute arose outside the Presidency town. The discussion in the High Court of Calcutta relating to the quo-warranto case14 gives history of the jurisdiction. Of course, the point was kept open by the Privy Council on appeal, because the Privy Council was of the opinion that the jurisdiction could not be exercised outside the Presidency town.15
1. Chapter 37, Cr. P.C., 1898.
2. C.P. Mathen v. D.M. Tribandrum V., AIR 1939 PC 213.
3. Indumati v. Bengal Court of Wards, 42 CWN 230.
4. RamjidaS (in re:), ILR 1935 Cal 1011.
5. National Carbon Co. (in re:), 38 CWN 729: AIR 1934 Cal 725 (727, 728).
6. Annie Besant v. Advocate General, 23 CWN 986.
7. Indumati v. Bengal Court of Wards, 42 CWN 230.
8. Ramjidas (in re:), ILR 1935 Cal 1011.
9. Alcock Ashdown & Co. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 50 IA 227: AIR 1923 PC 138.
10. Amarendra v. Narendra, 56 CWN 449.
11. Banwari Lal (in re:), 48 CWN 766.
12. I.Q. Master's Union v. Dutt, AIR 1951 Cal 570 (573).
13. Ryots of Garabandho v. Zemindar of Parkamedi, (1943) 70 IA 129: AIR 1943 PC 165.
14. Banwari Rai (in re:), 48 CWN 766 (on appeal, AIR 1947 PC 90).
15. For history of all writs, see S.R. Das J. in 48 CWN 766 (795, 796, 797), paras. 35 37,