A policy letter issued by the government can confer a right on a citizen which is enforceable by a writ of mandamus.

( 1 ) JIWAT Bai s husband s father had a vending contract with Railway from 1920 to until his death in 1932 in Pakistan. Contract was then transferred to her husband which continued with him even after migration to India and till he died in 1961. After that it was transferred in the name of petitioner and was renewed from time to time. Last agreement was of 16. 11. 72 and it was signed by her son Hiralal. It was to expire on 31. 7. 74. By policy letter of 24. 7. 74, it was decided to renew licenses of individual, as distinct from contractors, without calling applications. On 26. 7. 74, petitioner was told that it was decided not to renew her license. After a temporary period, petitioners contract was terminated by letter dt. 22. 11. 76. Writ petition was filed on 28. 11. 74. During its pendency, there was a policy change per letter dt. 24. 2. 75 by which refugees were exempted from operation of current policy. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petition is by M/s Jiwat Bai and Sons while petitioner had stated herself to be a widow and at places in the application petitioners is mentioned and hence there is no proper petition. That the agreement had been signed by Hiralal who had described the firm as his proprietary concern and licence Jiwat Bai had no locus standi. After narrating above facts, judgement para 5a, onwards is :

5a. M/s Jiwat Bai and Sons was apparently a loose name and style to describe the family which consists of Jiwat Bai and Hira lal. The various descriptions of M/s Jiwat Bai and Sons were apparently the result of linguistic inexactitude and it would be reasonable to treat the petition by the members of the family. I do not see why the widow and her son who are uneducated if not illiterate, should suffer because of legal procedures which involve unnecessary and cumbersome norms and because the counsel who drafted the petition did not or could not have precise instructions as to the status of the family and of the firm. It may be useful to remember that the practice and procedure of Courts is intended to further the course of justice and no to impede or obstruct it. I would, therefore, treat this as a joint petition by Jiwat Bai and Hiralal and that is how the petition was heard on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to amend the petition so as to add the name of Hira Lal but I do not think it is necessary to have a formal amendment for the purpose. The objection is, therefore, overruled.

( 2 ) WHETHER there is any right to the renewal of the vending license either in terms of the agreement by virtue of the relevant policy, is the first question that requires consideration. Clause (2) (a) of the agreement provides that renewal of the licence for further period would be at the "discretion" of the Railway Administration. There was, therefore, no right to renewal under the agreement. The revised policy in the matter of renewal of vending licences laid down by the Railway Board in its letter of July 17, 1974, as set in the Railway Board s letter of July 24, 1974, however, clearly confers a right of renewal on such of existing vendees who conform to the requirements for renewal in terms of the said policy. According to this policy, a vendor who was holding an individual licence in his own name and was himself actually doing the work without any vendor, helper, assistant etc. under him, was entitled to the renewal of the vending licence from time to time even though he might have held it for more than six years provided his performance had been found continuously satisfactory. The policy further lays down that it must be strictly complied with. The power conferred on the authorities to renew licences which satisfy the requirement for renewal laid down in the policy must be construed as a power coupled with a duty that must be exercised in favour of the subject if the requirements for such exercise are satisfied. To quote the language of Lord Cairns in the case o