THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Wednesday, 23rd day of January,2008 W.P.No.27937 of 1995 Between:- M. Kesavaiah … Petitioner and The Regional Manager (Mktg) LIC of India, South Central Zonal Office, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.27937 of 1995 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the Order dated 2-11-1995 passed by the 1st respondent as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, petitioner is working as a Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India and was attached to City Branch-II, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. While that being so, the name of one Smt.P.Durga Bhavani was recommended by the petitioner for being appointed as an Agent in the Circle in which he was operating. The recommendation of the petitioner was approved by the Branch Manager and she was appointed as an agent with effect from 9-11- 1991 and attached to the petitioner, though she could have been attached to any other Development Officer/circle. While that being so, one K.Baburao, the father-in-law of Smt.Durga Bhavani, was also working as an agent in a different circle in City Branch IV, Secunderabad and ultimately, his agency was terminated on 1-12- 1992. Thus, since 1-12-1992, the father-in-law of Smt.Durga Bhavani, i.e., K.Baburao ceased to be the agent of LIC. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent had passed an Order dated 26-6-1994 detaching the agency of Smt.Durga Bhavani with him, from the inception i.e. 9-11-1991; in the result, he was disentitled to claim commission for the business, which Smt.Durga Bhavani fetched, attaching herself as an agent to him. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a Writ Petition being W.P.No.15401 of 1994, which was allowed on 27-4-1995, on the ground that no notice of any kind was issued before passing the said order; however, liberty was granted to the respondents to issue notice and proceed with the matter. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice on 14-9-1995 and the petitioner submitted his reply on 4-10-1995 and thereafter, the impugned Order dated 2-11-1995 was passed stating that the attachment of agency of Smt.Durga Bhavani to the petitioner has been withdrawn from the date of inception i.e. 9-11-1991, in the result, the petitioner was denied commission for the business fetched by Smt.Durga Bhavani during her tenure of agency with the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. While admitting the Writ Petition on 12-12-1995, the impugned Order was suspended; thus Smt.Durga Bhavani is continued with the petitioner. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court, during the course of arguments, that from November,2000 she ceased to be the agent of LIC. Therefore, the question that remains to be considered is as to whether the impugned Order passed by the 1st respondent is invalid and the petitioner is entitled to claim commission for the business fetched by Smt.Durga Bhavani during her tenure as an agent being attached to the petitioner. The allegation made against the petitioner was that the petitioner is aware of the fact that Smt.Durga Bhavani was residing with her father-in-law K.Baburao, who was attached to a different Development Officer and Baburao diverted LIC business to Smt.Durga Bhavani, who was attached to the petitioner; therefore, the petitioner has committed a misconduct, which is contrary to the instructions issued by the respondent-Corporation. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that absolutely there are no Rules governing the field. May be, some circulars were issued by the respondent-Corporation desiring to curb unhealthy competition and to see that the business under one Development Officer is not diverted to another Development Officer. But, that does not mean that the petitioner was responsible for any such diversion of LIC business through Baburao to Smt.Durga Bhavani, who was attached to him. Even otherwise, Baburao, the father-in-law of Smt.Durga Bhavani ceased to be an agent of LIC with effect from 1-12-1992 i.e., within a period of one year from the date of enrolment of Smt.Durga Bhavani as an agent of LIC. As such, the contention of the respondents that the business fetched by Babuarao was diverted through Smt.Durga Bhavani to the petitioner cannot be accepted. The facts, as such, would reveal that the allegation made against the petitioner is as to diversion of business that would have been fetched by Baburao, who ceased to be an agent of LIC with effect from 1-12-1992. What exactly the business diverted by Baburao is not known. Simply because Smt.Durga Bhavani fetched some business being an agent attached to the petitioner, that itself does not mean that the entire business of Baburao was diverted. In fact, Baburao’s agency was terminated with effect from 1-12-1992, since he was not able to meet the target of fetching the business to LIC. Further, it is not in dispute that an Agent or a Development Officer in one part of the city cannot fetch business from another part or circle, which is under a different Development Officer. Under these circumstances, blaming the petitioner for recommending the name of Smt.Durga Bhavani does not arise. Petitioner only recommended the name of Smt.Durga Bhavani and it was always open for the Branch Manager to enquire into and if necessary to attach her to a different Development Officer. But, somehow, Smt.Durga Bhavani was attached to the petitioner. Probably, the father-in-law of Smt.Durga Bhavani was attached to some other Development Officer. May be, the fact that Smt.Durga Bhavani is the daughter-in-law of Baburao cannot be disputed. But that does not mean that a daughter-in-law cannot do business or cannot be attached as an agent while the father- in-law or her spouse being an LIC Agent, at all. Further, as stated above, as to what exactly the business diverted by Baburao is not available on record. Even if Baburao diverts the business after 1-12- 1992, since he was not an agent, it cannot be called a misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It is between Baburao or Smt.Durga Bhavani and her family members or friends to fetch business, the way in which it was generally done. For that, the petitioner cannot be denied the commission for the business Smt.Durga Bhavani fetched as an agent, from the date of inception i.e. 9-11-1991 or even after 1-12-1992. When a question is put by the Court as to whom the commission, which is accrued on the business fetched by Smt.Durga Bhavani, would be paid, if it is not paid to the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents stated that it will be paid to the Development Officer to whom Baburao was attached. Baburao also ceased to be an agent with effect from 1-12-1992 and even for the business fetched thereafter, the payment of commission to the Development Officer under whom Baburao was attached and ceased, cannot be said to be reasonable. Thus, in the guise of some circular without there being any substantial evidence, the petitioner is sought to be denied his legitimate right to claim commission for the business fetched by Smt.Durga Bhavani as an agent attached to him. This is nothing but arbitrary, unreasonable and unconscionable; therefore, it requires to be condemned in unequivocal terms. As such, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 23-01-2008 prk