Article 226 writ jurisdiction and alternative remedy must be tested independently; shrine board matters remitted for reconsideration.
A prior decision on the shrine legislation did not determine whether the Shrine Board was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, because that case addressed a different constitutional question and not the sweep of writ review. The governing tests for instrumentality or agency of the State had to be applied independently. As the High Court had not considered maintainability under the correct legal test or the possible availability of an alternative remedy, the matters were remitted for fresh decision on maintainability, alternative remedy, and merits if necessary.
Issues: (i) Whether the earlier decision in Bhuri Nath foreclosed the question whether the Shrine Board was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the writ petitions should be remitted for consideration of maintainability and alternative remedy in the light of the correct legal test.
Issue (i): Whether the earlier decision in Bhuri Nath foreclosed the question whether the Shrine Board was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The earlier decision was concerned with the constitutional validity of the shrine legislation and the consequence of extinction of baridars' rights, not with the sweep of Article 226. A finding that the Board was not a State-controlled corporation for the purpose of Article 31(2-A) did not determine whether it was an authority amenable to writ jurisdiction. The width of Article 226 extends to any person or authority, and the governing tests for instrumentality or agency of the State had to be applied independently.
Conclusion: Bhuri Nath did not conclude that the Shrine Board was outside the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions should be remitted for consideration of maintainability and alternative remedy in the light of the correct legal test.
Analysis: The High Court had proceeded without the benefit of the later and controlling exposition of law on when an entity is an instrumentality or agency of the State. Since the merits had not been examined after deciding maintainability, the proper course was to set aside the impugned judgments and remit the matters. The High Court was also required to consider whether Section 20 of the 1988 Act left any civil or industrial remedy open and, if so, whether the writ petitioners should be relegated to such remedy.
Conclusion: The matters were remitted to the High Court for fresh decision on maintainability, alternative remedy, and merits if necessary.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's judgments were set aside, and the connected matters were sent back for reconsideration under the correct writ-law framework, leaving all substantive contentions open.
Ratio Decidendi: A prior decision on a different constitutional question does not bar examination of amenability to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and where the governing legal test has changed, the proper course is to remit the matter for decision under the correct test, including consideration of alternative remedies.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
