Interim orders do not create substantive rights; once they cease to operate, writ relief cannot preserve the benefits obtained under them.

Interim orders are protective and provisional; they do not finally determine rights or create an independent substantive entitlement. Where interim protection merges into a final order and that final order is later set aside on appeal, no subsisting legal basis remains for claiming export-related benefits, renewal relief, or mandamus. Writ relief must rest on an existing legal right or a surviving order, and advantages obtained only through earlier interim protection cannot be converted into continuing substantive rights after the interim orders cease to operate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners could claim export-related benefits and renewal relief solely on the basis of interim orders passed in earlier proceedings after those interim orders had ceased to exist.

Analysis: Interim orders are protective and provisional; they do not finally determine the merits of the controversy or create enforceable rights independent of the final result. Once the interim orders merged in the final order and that final order was set aside in appeal, no subsisting order remained on which the petitioners could found a claim. Relief under writ jurisdiction must rest on an existing legal right or subsisting order, and the Court declined to reopen the consequence of interim protection that had already come to an end.

Conclusion: The petitioners had no enforceable entitlement based on the earlier interim orders, and the claim for mandamus failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because no surviving legal basis existed for the claimed benefits, and the interim protection could not be converted into a continuing substantive entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim orders do not confer independent substantive rights, and once they merge into a final order that ceases to operate, no writ relief can be granted merely to preserve advantages obtained under those orders.

---