https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110548 The court held that respondent No. 2, a voluntary body certifying circulation figures of member publications, could not be considered an "authority" or "person" under Article 226. It was determined that respondent No. 2 did not perform any public or statutory duty but operated voluntarily without statutory control. Consequently, the court found that writ jurisdiction was not maintainable against respondent No. 2, vacated the ad interim order, and denied the petitioner's request for a stay of the order. en-us Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:06:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110548 The court held that respondent No. 2, a voluntary body certifying circulation figures of member publications, could not be considered an "authority" or "person" under Article 226. It was determined that respondent No. 2 did not perform any public or statutory duty but operated voluntarily without statutory control. Consequently, the court found that writ jurisdiction was not maintainable against respondent No. 2, vacated the ad interim order, and denied the petitioner's request for a stay of the order. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110548