https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284272 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. en-us Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Nov 2019 10:45:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284272 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284272