https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287964 Article 226 was construed as extending to writ petitions against an authority within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction, and the existence of another adequate forum did not remove that power, though relief remained discretionary. Sections 52A to 52G of the Indian Insurance Act, 1938 were upheld as valid: they regulated insurance business for policy-holder protection, did not effect acquisition or possession of property under Article 31(2), and imposed reasonable restrictions outside the protection of Article 19 for corporations. The Controller's action under Section 52A was treated as administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial, so certiorari and prohibition were unavailable, and mandamus was refused because the statute did not require a full hearing, charge-sheet, or adjournment beyond the opportunity actually given. en-us Wed, 20 Jun 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2020 17:22:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287964 Article 226 was construed as extending to writ petitions against an authority within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction, and the existence of another adequate forum did not remove that power, though relief remained discretionary. Sections 52A to 52G of the Indian Insurance Act, 1938 were upheld as valid: they regulated insurance business for policy-holder protection, did not effect acquisition or possession of property under Article 31(2), and imposed reasonable restrictions outside the protection of Article 19 for corporations. The Controller's action under Section 52A was treated as administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial, so certiorari and prohibition were unavailable, and mandamus was refused because the statute did not require a full hearing, charge-sheet, or adjournment beyond the opportunity actually given. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Jun 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287964