https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285538 The substituted Article 226 was treated as a new writ framework confining relief to its expressly stated grounds, with clauses (b) and (c) requiring illegality or contravention that causes substantial failure of justice, assessed from the aggrieved person's perspective. A writ petition was held barred where a real and capable alternative remedy exists under any other law, but not where that remedy is illusory or ineffective. Section 58 of the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act was held not to retrospectively affect writ appeals or leave petitions arising from writ orders made before the appointed day. The amended interim order provisions were treated as mandatory, subject to recorded reasons and limited exceptional relief. en-us Fri, 11 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285538 The substituted Article 226 was treated as a new writ framework confining relief to its expressly stated grounds, with clauses (b) and (c) requiring illegality or contravention that causes substantial failure of justice, assessed from the aggrieved person's perspective. A writ petition was held barred where a real and capable alternative remedy exists under any other law, but not where that remedy is illusory or ineffective. Section 58 of the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act was held not to retrospectively affect writ appeals or leave petitions arising from writ orders made before the appointed day. The amended interim order provisions were treated as mandatory, subject to recorded reasons and limited exceptional relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285538