Writ jurisdiction is not executory jurisdiction: enforcement of crystallised orders must proceed through contempt or execution remedies.

Article 226 confers judicial review, not executory jurisdiction, so a writ court cannot use a fresh petition to enforce performance of crystallised obligations or determine implementation calculations under earlier orders. Where disobedience is intentional, contempt proceedings are the proper remedy; where the writ order is otherwise capable of execution, enforcement lies through execution proceedings under the Original Side Rules, as a writ order is treated as a decree for that purpose. In the present matter, a calculation exercise had already been undertaken by consent and was still continuing, so the Court declined to grant the executory relief sought in the writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a writ petition seeking implementation of earlier orders and consequential calculations, the High Court could itself issue executory directions to enforce compliance and determine the benefit under the licences.

Analysis: The petition arose from earlier judicial and departmental orders concerning revalidation of advance licences and the working out of duty foregone and related calculations. The Court held that its jurisdiction under Article 226 is one of judicial review and not an executory jurisdiction for enforcing performance of crystallised obligations under its own earlier order. Where there is intentional or deliberate disobedience, the appropriate course is contempt proceedings. Where the order is otherwise capable of execution, the remedy lies in execution proceedings under the Original Side Rules, since a writ order is treated as a decree for that purpose. On the facts, the Court noted that a cooperative calculation exercise had already been undertaken by consent through an advocate of the Court, and that task was still continuing.

Conclusion: The Court declined to adjudicate the petition any further and held that it could not grant the executory relief sought in the writ proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not result in substantive adjudication on the merits of the claimed implementation relief, and the parties were left to pursue the appropriate remedial course for enforcement or calculation.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 226 confers judicial review, not executory jurisdiction, and enforcement of a crystallised writ order must ordinarily be sought through contempt or execution proceedings, not by a fresh writ seeking implementation.

---