https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196640 Public interest standing was recognised where the petitioner alleged public injury and breach of public duty in relation to a nationalised bank, so the writ was maintainable. Article 226 jurisdiction was held to remain available because the banking-related grievance did not oust constitutional writ power. However, mandamus could not be issued to compel the third respondent to seek the Comptroller and Auditor-General's opinion or to disclose the inspection report, since the Constitution and the 1971 Act left audit to the prescribed statutory and executive satisfaction, with no corresponding legal duty cast on the respondent. The Court also declined to frame corrective policy guidelines, treating that as a legislative or executive function. en-us Fri, 19 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Dec 2017 11:20:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196640 Public interest standing was recognised where the petitioner alleged public injury and breach of public duty in relation to a nationalised bank, so the writ was maintainable. Article 226 jurisdiction was held to remain available because the banking-related grievance did not oust constitutional writ power. However, mandamus could not be issued to compel the third respondent to seek the Comptroller and Auditor-General's opinion or to disclose the inspection report, since the Constitution and the 1971 Act left audit to the prescribed statutory and executive satisfaction, with no corresponding legal duty cast on the respondent. The Court also declined to frame corrective policy guidelines, treating that as a legislative or executive function. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196640