IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 8112 of 2008 Between: S.P. Gopal Rao, S/o. S.P. Laxman Rao, R/o. Plot No. 4A, New Mamatha Nagar, Nagole, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep. by its Chairman, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai - 400 021. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not disposing the Memorial submitted by the Petitioner dt. 31-10-2007 under Regulation 24 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulation 1972 inspite of lapse of six months as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondent to consider and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following O R D E R: The writ petitioner was appointed as an Agent of the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India in March,2000. As part of promotion of the business of the respondent – Corporation, he seems to have submitted proposals covering 238 policies. Unfortunately, a couple of such policies have come to be repudiated by the Corporation, in view of the claims made in a short span of time after issuance of the policy. Therefore, the respondent- Corporation has suspected that the writ petitioner had not discharged his functions as an Agent diligently and he has not made any attempt to protect the interests of the Corporation. A show cause notice has been issued by the respondent – Corporation on 28th October 2005 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his agency should not be terminated and followed up by forfeiture of renewal commission. The writ petitioner has filed his reply, but however, the competent authority, namely the Senior Divisional Manager had rejected the explanation offered by him and terminated his agency, through his proceedings dated 11th October 2006. Since there is a provision for appealing under Regulation 23 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Regulations’), the petitioner availed of the appeal remedy and the Appellate Authority has also turned down his appeal on 27th September 2007, but however, the writ petitioner has submitted a Memorial to the Chairman of the respondent – Corporation on 31st October 2007 in terms of Regulation 24. Since the termination of agency of the writ petitioner has been brought about in accordance with Regulation 16 and not in accordance with Regulation 17, the Memorial submitted by the writ petitioner is entertainable. Inasmuch as the writ petitioner has already waited for nearly six months from the time the said Memorial has been submitted, it is only appropriate that the respondent shall pass such orders as are considered appropriate and necessary, by taking into account and consideration all relevant facts and factors, within a period of three months, at any rate on or before 31st July 2008. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. ---------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 15th April 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}