Religious denomination status and institutional character left for civil court, not writ proceedings, where facts remain disputed.

Disputes over whether the institutions were religious denominations, and whether they were private or public in character, were treated as disputed or mixed questions of fact and law. Such issues were considered unsuitable for determination in writ proceedings under Article 226 and were left open to be worked out before the competent civil court. The earlier view that the appellants could establish their claim in a proper civil forum was reaffirmed, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputes concerning the character of the institutions and the claim to religious denomination status should be decided in writ proceedings or left to be worked out in a competent civil court.

Analysis: The question whether the appellants or their institutions answered the description of a religious denomination, or whether the institutions were private or public in character, was treated as turning on disputed questions of fact, or at least mixed questions of fact and law. Such issues were considered unsuitable for adjudication in proceedings under Article 226 and were left open for determination in an appropriate civil forum. The prior view that the appellants were at liberty to establish their claim in a competent civil court was reaffirmed.

Conclusion: The issues were not decided in writ jurisdiction and were left open for adjudication in the proper forum; the appeal therefore failed.

---