JUDGMENT This application has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying, to substance, that a writ in the nature of quo warranto be issued commanding respondent no. 2 of this application to vacate the office of the Chairman of Darbhanga Municipal Board. 2. The relevant facts mentioned in the application are as follows: It is stated that in 1964 respondent no. 2 had filed his nomination paper from Ward No. 10 for election as a Commissioner of the Municipality and was illegally declared to be elected on the 2nd November, 1964. The returning officer had rejected the nomination paper of one Kulanand Vaidik, holding that the latter was a registered voter in Ward No. 15 and so he could not stand for election from ward No. 10. Kulanand Vaidik had filed a writ application in this Court, which had been numbered as C.W.J.C. 1167 of 1965. The case was decided by this Court on the ht September, 1966, when it was held that the election of respondent no. 2 was vitiated, because the nomination paper of Kulanand Vaidik had wrongly been rejected. It is stated, that, in the meantime, a meeting of the Commissioners of the Municipal Board was held on the 25th May, 1965, in which meeting respondent no. 2 was present as a Commissioner and he was elected as Chairman. It is alleged that the meeting was of the Commissioners only and none else had participated in it. It is alleged that after this Court had set aside the election of respondent no. 2 as a Commissioner, he ceased to be the Chairman of the Board and he is illegally continuing in a public office. 3. On behalf of respondent no. 2 a counter-affidavit and a further affidavit have been filed. The relevant matters appearing in the counter-affidavit are these. It is alleged that the petitioner has filed the writ application only to harass this respondent, deliberately suppressing certain facts known to him. The material facts said to have been suppressed are these. 3. On behalf of respondent no. 2 a counter-affidavit and a further affidavit have been filed. The relevant matters appearing in the counter-affidavit are these. It is alleged that the petitioner has filed the writ application only to harass this respondent, deliberately suppressing certain facts known to him. The material facts said to have been suppressed are these. The petitioner of the writ application, who was a Commissioner himself, had raised a point of order in a meeting of the Commissioners held on the 15th October, 1966, objecting to the presence of this respondent on the ground that his election as a Commissioner of the Municipality had been set aside by the High Court and so this respondent was no longer the Chairman of the Board. A copy of the application which had been presented by the petitioner of this writ petition and some other Commissioners has been annexed as Annexure A to the counter affidavit. It is further alleged that the President of the meeting of the Municipal Commissioners had considered this point of order and had rejected the objection on the same day, which conclusion must be taken to be final under the relevant rules of the Municipality framed under the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. A copy of the ruling given by the President of the meeting of the Municipal Commissioners has been annexed as Annexure C to the counter-affidavit. Thereafter, it is alleged in the counter-affidavit that on the manoeuvring of the petitioner of this writ application, a letter had been issued from the Government dated the 7th August, 1967, addressed to the District Officer, Darbhanga, informing him that the chairmanship of this respondent had automatically ceased and asking for a re-election to the office of the Chairman. Thereafter, this respondent had filed Title Suit No. 160 of 1967 in the Court of Munsif 1st Court, Darbhanga challenging the Government's direction and for restraining the defendants from giving effect to the said direction. An ad interim injunction had also been prayed for by this respondent as plaintiff and an ad interim order of injunction had been passed on the 10th August, 1967, which was made absolute on the 9th March, 1968. An ad interim injunction had also been prayed for by this respondent as plaintiff and an ad interim order of injunction had been passed on the 10th August, 1967, which was made absolute on the 9th March, 1968. A copy of the order of the learned Munsif bas been attached as Annexure D. It is then stated that, thereafter, the petitioner of this writ application filed a contempt case in this Court, numbered as Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.8 of 1968, alleging that this respondent was functioning as Chairman in gross disobedience of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1167 of 1965. It is stated that this application was dismissed by this Court by judgment and order passed on the 19th August, 1968. (As it appears from the record, the actual date of judgment is 9th August 1968.) It is contended by this respondent in the counter-affidavit that he had attended the meeting of the Commissioners on the 25th May, 1965, not only as a Commissioner but a/w as a person qualified to be a Commissioner and he had been elected as Chairman, as he was a person who was qualified to be a Municipal Commissioner and, therefore, there is no merit in the allegations made in the writ application. It is further contended in the counter-affidavit that the election of this respondent as Chairman can only be challenged by an election petition envisaged by Rule 62 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Election and Election Petitions Rules. In the further affidavit filed during the hearing of this case it has been stated that the term of the present Municipal Commissioners of Darbhanga Municipality had expired on the 26th November, 1969 and the Commissioners and the Chairman are continuing to act under Section 29(2) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act and that new elections are to be held very soon, as shown by the letter of the District Magistrate of Darbhanga dated the 22nd January, 1970, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure A to this further affidavit. It is also stated that this respondent still commands overwhelming majority of votes against the petitioner and barring one or two Commissioners, others are in favour of this respondent continuing as Chairman till fresh election is held. 4. It is also stated that this respondent still commands overwhelming majority of votes against the petitioner and barring one or two Commissioners, others are in favour of this respondent continuing as Chairman till fresh election is held. 4. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the election of respondent no, 2 as Municipal Commissioner, held on the 2nd November, 1964, was quashed by this Court on the 1st September, 1966 and that till the 11th June, 1968, when the petitioner had filed Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.8' of 1968, the petitioner had not ventilated his grievance in this Court as against continuance of respondent no. 2 as Chairman of the Municipal Board. It appears from the record of Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.8 of 1968, that, the present respondent no. 2 had taken a similar stand, by filing a counter-affidavit, stating that the objection of the petitioner of that case (i. e. the petitioner of the present case) to the continuance of present respondent no. 2 as Chairman was without force, in view of the ruling of the Chair given in the meeting of the Municipal Commissioners on the 15th October, 1966. A copy of the ruling of the Chair, which has now been appended as Annexure C to the counter-affidavit, was also filed in that case, marked as Annexure A. Therefore, attention of the petitioner had been drawn, as early as in July, 1968, to the invalidity of his contentions raised against present respondent no. 2. Even then, nothing was done by the present petitioner except to press his application in Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 8 of 1968 under the Contempt of .courts Act. In that case, the present petitioner had made identical allegation against present respondent no. 2 as he has done in the present writ application, except that the prayer made in the present case is different. In that contempt case also, the petitioner had not brought to the notice of this Court the ruling of the Chair given on the 15th October, 1966. A serious view must be taken of the fact that material facts have been suppressed by the petitioner, to which our attention has been drawn on behalf of respondent no. 2. In that contempt case also, the petitioner had not brought to the notice of this Court the ruling of the Chair given on the 15th October, 1966. A serious view must be taken of the fact that material facts have been suppressed by the petitioner, to which our attention has been drawn on behalf of respondent no. 2. When the petitioner's objection made in the meeting of the Municipal Commissioners on the 15th October, 1966 had been negatived in no uncertain terms, as is indicated by Annexure C appended to the counter-affidavit, the petitioner had a cause of action for ventilating his grievance in other forums, including this Court. According to learned counsel for respondent no. 2, an order of injunction has been passed against the defendants of Title Suit No. 160 of 1967 until the final decision of that suit and this belated application filed by the petitioner should not be accepted, as an ad verse order passed against respondent no. 2 in this case will make his suit infructuos. It is also argued by learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that after the 15th October, 1966 the petitioner must have participated in meetings of the Municipal Commissioners under the Chairmanship of respondent no. 2 and the present application must have been filed 'for extrinsic reasons which may not be very apparent on the records of the case. It is, however, not necessary to give any concluded opinion as to the validity of the order of injunction passed in the title suit, to which the present petitioner is not a party, but there is no doubt that the present petitioner has come up to this Court after a long and unexplained delay. Moreover, as will appear from the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, the term of the Municipal Commissioners had expired on the 26th November, 1969 and even the petitioner is continuing to act under Section 29 (2) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act and that the authorities are taking appropriate steps for fresh election of Municipal Commissioners in this Municipality. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which respondent no. 2 should be ousted from the post of which he had been elected in 1965 by a writ of quo warranto. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which respondent no. 2 should be ousted from the post of which he had been elected in 1965 by a writ of quo warranto. A writ of quo warranto is not a writ of right, and in my opinion, the petitioner has disentitled himself for such a writ at this stage by his long inaction. Mere delay may not be sufficient for dismissal of an application for a writ of quo warranto, but as indicated above, the petitioner had acceded to the situation in which he is now continuing, since the 15th October, 1966, knowing that the objections that he is raising now had been raised by him then and rejected. The contentions put forward by him now were met in the contempt case in the same way as they are met now and the petitioner had still taken a chance in the contempt case, which attempt had failed. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the petitioner's prayer must be rejected in this case. 5. The writ application therefore, fails and it is dismissed. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order for costs of this Court. Application dismissed