JUDGMENT : Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. By this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: [A] The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 27.06.2014 passed by the respondent no.4-The Bhuj Commercial Co-Operative Bank Ltd appointing the respondent no.5 CEO of the bank as election officer as well as quash and set aside the advertisement dated 28.06.2014 public in the Newspaper to hold election on 03.08.2014 and to issue fresh election after appointing qualified persons as CEO of the Bank as per the circular no; RPCD. CO.RCBD.131/13.01.03/2011-12 issued by the respondent no.3-RBI. [B] That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent no.4-The Bhuj Commercial Co-Operative Bank Ltd Management Committee not to accept the Nomination Form as per the advertisement dated 28.06.2014 issued by the respondent no.5-CEO/Election Officer of the Bank. [C] Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of present petition, the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to stay of operation, implementation and execution of the advertisement issued on 28.06.2014 to hold election by unqualified election officer [CEO] appointed by the respondent no.4-The Bhuj Commercial Co-Operative Bank Ltd; [D] Any other and further relief’s as may be deemed just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may kindly be granted in the interest of justice. 2. The case made out by the petitioner may be summed up thus: 2.1 The petitioner, as an activist, made an application on 19th June 2014 to the Respondent No.4-The Bhuj Commercial Co-Operative Bank Ltd., for information under the Right to Information Act for revealing the following details: [1] Rules of the Bank [2] Rules and regulations of the Election and also the current rule and regulation of state Government for holding election. [3] Resolution of the current year with regard to election. [4] The date on which Shri Dhirendbhai Shambhulal Majethiya has been appointed as General Manager and also the details of the resolution passed by the Board. [5] Education and qualification of Shri Dhirenbhai Shambhulal Majethiya and also the application made by Shri Dhirenbhai Shambhulal Majethiya. [6] Details as to whether Shri Dhirenbhai Shambhulal Majethiya has been appointed as General Manager as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. [7] Details of any advertisement issued in the Newspaper prior to appointment of Shri Dhirenbhai Shambhulal Majethiya as General Manager. [6] Details as to whether Shri Dhirenbhai Shambhulal Majethiya has been appointed as General Manager as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. [7] Details of any advertisement issued in the Newspaper prior to appointment of Shri Dhirenbhai Shambhulal Majethiya as General Manager. [8] Whether any senior officers of the Bank were present at the time of appointment of Shri Dhirenbhai Shambhulal Majethiya and whether any other persons made applications for appointment of General Manager. [9] Details of the resolution regarding appointment of Shri Dhirenbhai Shambhulal Majethiya as election officer and if the appointment has been given, to provides the details of the resolution? 2.2 The Respondent No.4, vide letter 30th June 2014, gave vague information to the petitioner without giving any details and as regards Items 4 to 8, it was stated that the appointment of General Manager is the function of only the Bank and, therefore, the details would not be provided to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, such information itself indicated that the General Manager [CEO] of the bank was not appointed in accordance with the circular and guidelines of the Respondent No.3-Reserve Bank of India. According to the petitioner, the appointment of the Chief Election Officer for the election should be set aside as he had no requisite qualification. 3. After hearing Mr. Patel, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and after going through the aforesaid averments made in the application, we find that the petitioner is not sure as to the qualification of the Respondent No.5 and his grievance is that the Respondent No.5 should not be appointed as Chief Election Officer of the concerned Bank. 4. Therefore, in substance, the petitioner is a third party who wants a writ of quo warranto for quashing the appointment of Chief Election Officer for the election of the Respondent No.4-Bank. 5. In this connection, we may profitably refer to the following observations of this bench in the case of Pradip Prajapati v. Principal Secretary and three other in L.P. A. no.2485 of 2010 dated 11th April 2012 regarding the essentials of issuing writ of Quo Warranto in paragraphs 40 to 43 which are quoted below: "40. 5. In this connection, we may profitably refer to the following observations of this bench in the case of Pradip Prajapati v. Principal Secretary and three other in L.P. A. no.2485 of 2010 dated 11th April 2012 regarding the essentials of issuing writ of Quo Warranto in paragraphs 40 to 43 which are quoted below: "40. In our opinion, one of the most important conditions which the person seeking a writ of quo warranto must satisfy is that the office in question is a public office and the same is of a public nature. If this condition is satisfied, only in such a case the Court may proceed further to inquire as to whether the appointment to the public office is really in violation of statutory rules and regulations or any provision of law. In the present case, it is a case of the appellant that the office of the Chief Accounts Officer is a public office and the Chief Accounts Officer discharges the public functions. To examine this question, we need to understand the true meaning of the word "public office". "Public Office" has not been defined under the Act of 1949. "Public Office" as explained by the Major Law Lexicon 4th Edition 2010 is as under: "Public Office" defined. 55-6 V. c.40 S.4 A position whose occupant has legal authority to exercise a Government's sovereign powers for a fixed period. Position involving exercise of Governmental functions [S.6 (f), T.P. Act (4 of 1882)]; an office where public business is transacted. [O.XIII, R.5(2), CPC (5 of 1908)]. A public office is the right, authority and duty created and conferred by law, by which an individual is vested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the Government to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public, for the term and by the tenure prescribed by law. It implies a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power. It is a trust conferred by public authority for a public purpose, embracing the ideas of tenure, duration, emoluments and duties.. .. The determining factor, the test, is whether the office involves a delegation of some of the solemn functions of Government, either executive, legislative or judicial, to be exercised by the holder for the public benefit. (72 CWN 64, Vol.72). .. The determining factor, the test, is whether the office involves a delegation of some of the solemn functions of Government, either executive, legislative or judicial, to be exercised by the holder for the public benefit. (72 CWN 64, Vol.72). [Extraordinary Legal Remedies, by Ferris as referred in V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Adm.), (1980) Supp SCC 249, 266 para 26] In Re Miram's (1891) IQB 594, Cave. J said "to make the Office a Public Office the pay must come out of national and not out of local funds, - the Office must be public in the strict sense of that term. It is not enough that the due discharge of the duties should be for the public benefit in a secondary and remote sense." 41. According to the Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, the term "Public Office" is explained as under: "Public Office. Essential characteristics of "public office" are (1) authority conferred by law, (2) fixed tenure of office, and (3) power to exercise some portion of sovereign functions of Government; key element of such test is that "officer" is carrying out sovereign function. Spring v. Constantino, 168 Conn. 563, 362 A.2d 871, 875. Essential elements to establish public position as "public office" are position must be created by constitution, legislature, or through authority conferred by legislature, portion of sovereign power of Government must be delegated to position, duties and powers must be defined, directly or impliedly, by legislature or through legislative authority, duties must be performed independently without control of superior power other than law, and position must have some permanency and continuity. State exrel. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Gaertner, Mo.App., 619 S.W. 2D 761. 764. 42. Winfield on pages 463 to 478 of Volume LXI of the Law Quarterly Review. State exrel. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Gaertner, Mo.App., 619 S.W. 2D 761. 764. 42. Winfield on pages 463 to 478 of Volume LXI of the Law Quarterly Review. On page 464 the learned author poses the question, what is a "Public Office" and proceeds, "Setting aside statutory definitions of interpretations thereof, two judicial explanations are as follows: In 1828, Best, C.J. described a Public Officer as "every one who is appointed to discharge a public duty, and receives a compensation in whatever shape, whether from the Crown or otherwise." In 1914, Lawrence, J. said: "A public officer is an officer who discharges any duty in the discharge of which the public are interested, more clearly so if he is paid out of a fund provided by the public." Best, C.J. lays too much emphasis on remuneration of some sort, for some public officers discharge their duties gratuitously; e.g. the Lord-Lieutenant of a country or a Justice of the Peace; and both definitions use the very word which they purport to explain. However, the chief characteristics of a public office seem to be that it is a post the occupation of which involves the discharge of duties towards the community or some section of it and that usually those duties are connected with Government, whether central or local." The author repeats these views in his text book of the Law of Tort, on page 614 of the third edition; "The chief characteristics of a 'Public Office' (apart from any statutory definition) are that it is a post the occupation of which involves the discharge of duties towards the community or some section of it, whether the occupier of the post is or is not remunerated." 20. The following passage from page 427 of Volume IV Burrows is also of interest: To make the office a public office, the pay must come out of national and not out of local funds, and the office must be public in the strict sense of that term. It is not enough that the due discharge of the duties of the office should be for the public benefit in a secondary and remote sense". "A public office includes the holding of a commission in the territorial Army, or in any other of the armed forces of the Crown." 21. It is not enough that the due discharge of the duties of the office should be for the public benefit in a secondary and remote sense". "A public office includes the holding of a commission in the territorial Army, or in any other of the armed forces of the Crown." 21. Reference may also be made to the passage on pages 146 and 147 of Volume 11 of Halsbury's Laws of England, Simonds edition. "The duties of the office must be of a public nature. Thus, an information lay against a privy council or, because, membership of the Privy Council constitutes the holding of an office of a public nature." 43. What can be deduced from the term "Public Office" as explained by various authors and the authoritative pronouncements is that a public office is the right, authority and duty created and conferred by law, by which an individual is vested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the Government to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public, for the term and by the tenure prescribed by law. It implies a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power. It is a trust conferred by public authority for a public purpose, embracing the ideas of tenure, duration, emoluments and duties. A public officer is, thus, to be distinguished from a mere employment or agency resting on contract, to which such powers and functions are not attached. The Common Law Rule is that in order for the writ to lie, the office must be of a public nature. The determining factor, the test, is whether the office involves a delegation of some of the solemn functions of Government, either executive, legislative or judicial, to be exercised by the holder for the public benefit. Unless his powers are of this nature, he is not a public officer." 6. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the Chief Election Officer for election of the Bhuj Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., cannot be said to be the holder of a public office so as to entertain a Public Interest Litigation for issuing a writ of quo warranto as the said office does not involve delegation of some of the solemn functions of Government, either executive, or legislative or judicial, to be exercised by the holder for the public benefit. Moreover, none of the legal or fundamental rights of the petitioner has been infringed even if we hold that the holder of the office had no requisite qualification. 7. We, thus, find no merit in the application and the same is dismissed. Application Dismissed.