Short answer. Yes. On the application for permission to commence the action, the court directs that notice be given to the respondent so they may be heard in opposition; if permission is granted, the court's order is served on all interested parties and the petition must then be filed within the court-set period.
What the law says
Upon application for permission to commence such action in accordance with the next preceding section, the court shall direct that notice be given to the respondent so that he may be heard in opposition thereto; and if permission is granted, the court shall issue an order to that effect, copies of which shall be served on all interested parties, and the petition shall then be filed within the period ordered by the court.
Rule 66, Section 4 — When hearing had on application for permission to commence action. Read the full provision →
Notice before permission is even granted
When a private relator applies through the Solicitor General or a public prosecutor for permission to commence a quo warranto action, the respondent is not left in the dark. The court directs that notice of the application itself be given to the respondent, so they can be heard in opposition before the court decides whether to grant permission at all, rather than being confronted with an already-authorized lawsuit they never had a chance to argue against. This mirrors the broader pattern in quo warranto practice of giving the person accused of usurpation a genuine chance to be heard at each significant stage of the case, not only at trial itself.
What happens once permission is granted
If the court does grant permission, it issues an order to that effect, and copies of that order must be served on all interested parties — not just the respondent, but anyone else with a stake in the matter, ensuring everyone affected knows the action has been authorized to proceed. Serving the order broadly, rather than only on the respondent, keeps every interested party on notice of exactly what the court has authorized going forward. Broad service at this stage also reduces the risk that a later step in the case gets challenged simply because someone with a genuine interest was never told the action had been authorized.
A deadline for actually filing
Permission is not open-ended. Once granted, the petition itself must be filed within whatever period the court sets in its order, so the relator and the officer bringing the case cannot sit on the permission indefinitely once it has been obtained. Letting the permission lapse without filing within that period would presumably require going back to the court to seek permission anew before the action could actually proceed.
Related provisions
- Rule 66, Section 4 — When hearing had on application for permission to commence action
- Rule 66, Section 3 — When Solicitor General or public prosecutor may commence action with permission of court
- Rule 66, Section 6 — Parties and contents of petition against usurpation