Expired policy benefits cannot be revived through writ jurisdiction when no subsisting right survives and delay weighs against relief.

A writ court cannot direct payment of premium under a REP licence scheme after the scheme and supporting circular have ceased to operate, particularly where the claimant seeks relief after prolonged delay. The policy benefit was confined to the scheme's own framework and period, so no enforceable right survived to demand payment years later. The court could not use writ jurisdiction to continue, revive, or extend an expired policy regime, and the changed policy position further weighed against relief. The claim therefore failed because the asserted entitlement was time-barred in substance by the scheme's limited duration and the absence of a subsisting legal right.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ court could direct payment of premium under a REP licence scheme after the scheme and the relevant circular had ceased to operate, and after a long delay in pursuing the claim.

Analysis: The claim was founded on a policy circular that granted premium benefits only within the framework and period of the scheme. The application was made in 1993, but no enforceable right to insist on payment years later was shown. The scheme was not open-ended, and the Court could not direct continuation, revival, or extension of a policy or circular in writ jurisdiction. The intervening delay and the changed policy regime also weighed against granting relief.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought, and the writ petition failed.

---