The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of the writ of mandamus in enforcing contractual rights and the principle that mandamus would not be issued if its effect would be nullified by a properly constituted authority giving direction within its competence.

1. These two appeals arise from the order by a learned judge, whereby he has vacated two orders, Ext P13 & P16, which had terminated the services of the writ petitioner as the Manager of two evacuee business, and has directed the petitioner's being put back in possession. The respondents to the petition have appealed against the mandamus so granted. The learned judge has not issued any writ restraining the aforesaid respondents from selling the business by public auction, and not to do anything in violation of the petitioner's right under the Central Government's order, Ext. P5. The writ petitioner has, therefore appealed against the refusal to issue such a writ. Connected with the aforesaid two appeals, is the application for contempt on the ground of the respondents to the writ petition failing to comply with the mandamus issued by the learned Judge. It follows that the question arising for consideration in the aforesaid consolidated cases is whether the writ of mandamus has been rightly issued or properly withheld.

2. The facts of the case are not complicated and can be briefly narrated. The proprietors of two firms, "Adam Hajee Peer Mohamed Essak" and "Hajee Bbrahim Kassem Cochinwala" had, in or about the year 1947, migrated to Pakistan, and both the business, therefore, became vested in the Custodian of the Evacuee Properties for the State of Madras, under S.8 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act. The writ petitioner, L.S. Lalvani, who is a refugee from Pakistan, and avers to have, under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950, registered his claim as a displaced person; had in February 1952 applied to the Custodian for being allotted the two business, as Kozhikode then formed part of Madras State and the two business were situated in Kozhikode. On March 6,1952, the prayer was allowed by the Custodian, who thereby approved the proposal of the Deputy Custodian about the management of the firms being allotted to the writ petitioner. The petitioner was asked to furnish security of Rs. 20,000/- which he did; and on March 21, 1952, took possession as the Manager. Thereafter, the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property addressed a communication on October 27,1952, asking whether the writ petitioner would accept the allotment of the aforesaid business concerns; but nothing further appears to have been done in that year, nor during the next year. On October 9,1954, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, was passed, which will hereinafter be referred to as the 1954 Act. Also no steps were taken during 1955 about the two concerns being allotted to the writ petitioner; but on April 11, 1956, the proposals for the sale of the aforesaid evacuee properties by public auction appeared in "The Hindu". It is petitioner's case that he under the 1954 Act applied to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for orders stopping the sale of the two concerns & that the Central Government by proceedings dated April 24, 1956, stopped the sale, and ordered their allotment to the writ petitioner on terms and conditions to be communicated later This order is marked Ext. P-5, and its relevant part reads as follows:

"I am directed to state that it has been decided in principle that the aforesaid evacuee concerns will be allotted to you. The terms of allotment will be communicated to you separately. Meanwhile, you will continue to function as the Custodian's Manager for these concerns, in terms of S.10(2)(b) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, read with R.34 of the Rules made under the Act"

The order was communicated to the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Madras; and, in pursuance Messrs. T.K. Menon & Co., Chartered Accountants, were appointed to submit valuation report regarding the assets. The copy of the letter from the Custodian of Evacuee Property received by the petitioner is Ext. P-8 and reads thus:

"The Deputy Custodian is informed that the Governmen