JUDGMENT : Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a writ of quo warranto questioning the appointment of the respondent No.3 as the Chairman of the respondent No.4-Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority (for short 'the Planning Authority'). 2. The facts leading to the case are as under : The present writ petition is filed in the form of a public interest litigation questioning the appointment of the respondent No.3 as the Chairman of the Planning Authority. The petitioner claims that the State has framed Rules for appointment of a Chairman and Members of the Planning Authority. It is contended that there is absolute violation of the said Rules and therefore, the persons who are unsuitable to the post and are not qualified are being appointed as Chairman of the Planning Authority. The petitioner has specifically contended that just prior to appointment, the respondent No.3 has changed his address. The petitioner has further seriously disputed the claim made by the respondent No.3 as a social worker. Specific malafides are attributed and a contention is taken that the respondent No.3 is appointed as a Chairman on the recommendation letter written by the MLA who is also the Political Secretary to the Chief Minister of the State. The petitioner has also alleged that one more MLA who is also the Minister for Revenue and close relative of respondent No.3 has also made recommendation for appointment of respondent No.3 as the Chairman of the Planning Authority. 3. On these set of allegations, the petitioner contends that the appointment runs contrary to the Rules and procedure contemplated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'). It is alleged that the respondent No.3 does not possess any of the qualifications contemplated under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules of 1965') and therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking writ of quo warranto. 4. On receipt of notice, the respondent/State has filed statement of objections and has stoutly denied the entire averments made in the writ petition. 4. On receipt of notice, the respondent/State has filed statement of objections and has stoutly denied the entire averments made in the writ petition. The respondent/State has taken a specific contention that an amendment was brought into the Rules of 1965 with effect from 1/9/2016 and by way of amendment to the Karnataka Planning Authorities (Amendment) Rules, 2015, the legislature has included Social Worker or any graduate to Rule 5(b)(iii) of the Rules of 1965. The respondent/State by placing reliance on this amendment has taken a specific contention that so far as eligibility criteria of Chairman is concerned, no qualification is prescribed and the eligibility criteria stands restricted only to the members who are part of the planning committee. The respondent/State has denied the allegation that respondent No.3 is appointed as a Chairman of the Planning Authority only on the recommendations by the Member of the Legislative Assembly. 5. The respondent/State refuting these allegations has contended that the entire process in selecting the Chairman is based on the reports secured from the jurisdictional Tahsildar and also after securing opinion from the Bangalore Metropolitan Development Authority. The respondent/State has also contended that the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Urban Development Department has considered the entire material and on perusal of all the notings of the file and the materials, has placed the file for necessary orders and it is only after verifying the various notings, the respondent No.3 is appointed as the Chairman of the respondent No.4- Planning Authority. The respondent/State has also contended that appointment of respondent No.3 is based on 'Doctrine of Pleasure' of the State Government and therefore, the question of inviting applications would not arise. On these set of grounds, the respondent/State has sought dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The respondent No.3 has filed statement of objections and has stoutly denied the allegations made in the writ petition. To refute the allegations, the respondent No.3 has produced record of rights to demonstrate that he owns ancestral lands which squarely falls within the planning area zone and the same would establish his acquaintance with the planning area and that he is an ordinary resident of the area which is part of the Planning Authority. To substantiate his claim, he has produced Record of Rights and Aadhar card. To substantiate his claim, he has produced Record of Rights and Aadhar card. To demonstrate his pro bono credentials and his service to the society, he has placed relevant paper cuttings and also certificates issued by various Hospitals. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the appointment of the respondent No.3 by the State is in gross violation of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the respondent No.3 neither possesses requisite qualification to hold the post of Chairman of the Planning Authority nor is a resident of the local planning area which is a condition precedent to consider the respondent No.3 for the post of Chairmanship. Placing reliance on the recommendations of the MLA, a member of the Legislative Assembly, he would submit to this Court that the very appointment is tainted with arbitrariness and non-transparency and therefore, appointment being illegal and unconstitutional, warrants interference at the hands of this Court. 8. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments: 1) Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Others reported in Manu/SC/1147/2013; 2) B.K.Uday Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka and Others reported in Manu/KA/0001/2020; 3) M.P.State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal vs. Nanuram Yadav and Others reported in Manu/SC/3761/2007. 9. Repelling the contentions, Shri M.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Additional Advocate General would however counter the grounds urged in the writ petition. He would submit to this Court that the State Government has undertaken a detailed process of securing opinions from the concerned authorities and thereafter has proceeded to appoint the respondent No.3 as the Chairman of the Planning Authority. 10. Shri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 reiterating the stand taken in the statement of objections has argued on the same lines as that of the learned Additional Advocate General. The respondent No.3 has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 731 (11). The respondent No.3 has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 731 (11). Placing reliance on this judgment, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the grounds urged in the writ petition are untenable and no material are placed on record to demonstrate that the appointment is tainted with malafides and therefore, would request this Court to dismiss this writ petition. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri M.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Shri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, Shri Yogesh D.Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Shri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Shri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6. 12. Before we advert to the rival contentions of the parties, it would be useful for us to extract Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965, which reads as under: "5. Qualification for membership - A member of the Planning Authority, other than a person appointed as member by virtue of his office shall possess the following qualifications, namely - (a) He shall be a person ordinarily resident in the Local Planning Area; and (b) (i) He must be associated with Town Planning work at least for one year in bodies, such as, Municipalities, Zilla Panchayaths, Taluk Panchayaths, Gram Panchayaths, Co-operative Societies, Urban Development Authorities or Planning Authorities or the State Town Planning Board; or ii) He must be a qualified Town Planner or Architect or Engineer Practicing in the State, the period of such practice being not less than five years; or iii) He must be a specialist such as an Economist, Geographer, Sociologist, Legal Practitioner or Social Worker or any graduate: Provided the Planning Authorities specially constituted for infrastructure projects, the State Government may relax the above clause(a)." 13. On perusal of Annexure-R1, we would find that an amendment was brought to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965 and under clause (iii) of Rule 5(b), the category of social worker or any graduate was included. This amendment was brought into effect with effect from 1/9/2016. On perusal of Annexure-R1, we would find that an amendment was brought to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965 and under clause (iii) of Rule 5(b), the category of social worker or any graduate was included. This amendment was brought into effect with effect from 1/9/2016. Rule 5(a) contemplates that the member of the Planning Authority other than a person appointed as a member by virtue of his office has to possess two qualifications. Firstly, he shall be a person ordinarily resident in the Local Planning Area. However, the second qualification contemplated under Rule 5(b), on bare reading, we would find that they are optional and the person appointed as a Chairman shall possess either one of the qualifications prescribed under Rule 5(b)(i) to (iii). 14. If the appointment of the respondent No.3 as the Chairman of the respondent No.4-Planning Authority is examined in terms of the amended provisions of Rule 5, it can be inferred that the legislature intended to recommend persons from various spectrum of field to the post of Chairman of the Planning Authority. On examination of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965, we are of the view that the contention raised by the petitioner that respondent No.3 does not possess requisite eligibility criteria and he does not hold any qualification and experience in the field of Town Planning or Architect or Engineering cannot be acceded to. The apprehension of the petitioner that the Chairman heading a Planning Authority is required to take vital decisions in regard to developmental projects and therefore, the respondent No.3 does not hold requisite eligibility criteria appears to be misconceived. 15. It would also be relevant for this Court to examine Sec. 4-C of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and the same is culled out as under: "4-C. Constitution of Planning Authority.- (1) As soon as may be, after declaration of a local planning area, the State Government in consultation with the Board, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for the purposes of the performance of the functions assigned to it, an authority to be called the "Planning Authority" of that area, having jurisdiction over that area. 2) Every Planning Authority constituted under sub-sec. 2) Every Planning Authority constituted under sub-sec. (1), shall be a body corporate by the name aforesaid having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property both moveable and immoveable and to contract and shall by the said name sue and be sued. (3) Every Planning Authority constituted under sub-sec. (1), shall consist of the following members, namely:- (i) a Chairman appointed by the State Government; (ii) a Town Planning Officer appointed by the State Government, who shall be a Member-Secretary to the Planning Authority; (iii) representatives of local bodies composed as follows :- (a) in the case of a planning area in which only one local authority has jurisdiction, a representative nominated by that local authority from among the members of that authority and the Chief Executive Officer of that local authority; (b) in the case of a planning area in which two or more local authorities have jurisdiction, one representative each of such local authorities as the State Government may consider necessary to be represented, nominated by the respective local authorities from among the members of each such local authority: Provided that, the total number of such representatives shall not exceed five. (iv) three other members, appointed by the State Government. (4) The State Government may, if it thinks fit, appoint one of the members as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Authority." 16. On perusal of Sec. 4-C (2) and (3), we would find that it is not only the Chairman who would be part of the planning committee. Every Planning Authority constituted under Sec. 4-C also consists of Town Planning Officer and one Chief Executive Officer of that local authority. The committee constituted under the Act consists of five members. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the Planning Authority has vital functions to discharge and the Planning Authority has to also prepare a master plan or revised master plan and enforce the planning proposals within the local planning area and that respondent No.3 has no qualification to discharge the duties of a Chairman of the Planning Authority cannot be acceded to and therefore, we decline to accept the said contention. 17. What emerges from the relevant Rules and Sec. which are culled out is that insofar as appointment of Chairman is concerned, it is purely based on Doctrine of Pleasure. 17. What emerges from the relevant Rules and Sec. which are culled out is that insofar as appointment of Chairman is concerned, it is purely based on Doctrine of Pleasure. The legislature by bringing in amendment to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965 intended to include persons belonging even from the field of social work and therefore, in the present case on hand, the appointment of respondent No.3 as the Chairman is at pleasure of the Government. Even otherwise, the material on record clearly indicates that the jurisdictional Tahsildar and also experts of the Bangalore Metropolitan Development Authority have recommended to consider respondent No.3 for the post of Chairman of the Planning Authority. 18. The petitioner has failed to convince us and has also not been able to make out any violation of law and statutory provisions. Writ of quo warranto can only be issued when there is violation of statutory rules. The Court, is therefore, required to determine at the outset whether a case is made out for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. It is trite law that a jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ the Court merely makes a public declaration but does not consider the respective impact on the candidates competing for the post or other factors which are invariably relevant when a case is examined in a writ of certiorari. The quo warranto proceedings affords a judicial enquiry only in those cases where it is called upon to examine whether a person appointed to a public office or franchise or liberty does not possess the prescribed qualification to the post under consideration. On examination of the material on record, we are of the view that the enquiry in the present case on hand does not lead to any conclusion and finding that the holder of the office i.e., the present respondent No.3 lacks prescribed eligibility. Therefore, we do not find any grounds to examine and review the executive action of the State Government in appointing respondent No.3 as the Chairman of respondent No.4-Planning Authority. To claim a writ of quo warranto, petitioner has to satisfy this Court inter alia that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority and his appointment is in clear infringement of provisions of any statute. To claim a writ of quo warranto, petitioner has to satisfy this Court inter alia that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority and his appointment is in clear infringement of provisions of any statute. The claim made by the petitioner that respondent No.3 does not possess prescribed qualification is untenable in view of amendment to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965. 19. The materials placed on record clearly demonstrate that respondent No.3 is a resident in the Local Planning Area and the material on record further clearly indicates that petitioner is involved in social work and therefore, we do not find any infraction or violation of statutory provisions as alleged in the writ petition. 20. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.