M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 16. 6. 2000, 22. 9. 2002, Annexure 4 and 9 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus restraining the respondents from shifting the agency of the petitioner subsequent to the impugned order. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) IT is alleged in para 2 of the petition that on 30. 11. 99 the petitioner was appointed as agent of the respondent Life Insurance corporation. She was attached to Sri S. K. Jain development Officer. It is alleged that the petitioners performance was outstanding. The appointment of an agent of the L. I. C. is governed by the Agents/regulation 1972 framed under Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation act. Under Regulation 5, all appointments are to be made by the competent authority specified in the Schedule to the Regulations. For the purpose of appointment of agents, the Branch Manager is the competent authority. So far as appointment of an agent with a particular Development Officer is concerned the matter is governed by the circulars issued by the Life Insurance Corporation from time to time. Under the circular dated 20. 1. 92 annexure 1 to the petition an agent may be attached only when the new business sum assured (in short called the NBSA) is below the criterion laid down. It is alleged that person does not fall in the aforesaid criteria, he/she cannot be attached/detached. It is alleged in para 7 of the petition that the petitioner has given a remarkable business of about 60 lacs and insured 26 lives in only seven months and hence she cannot be detached or attached. The circular letter dated 20. 1. 92 has been clarified by circular dated 23. 6. 92 which is more elaborate, specific and clear. It modifies para 3 (e) to tone down the limit of NBSA. The limit of nbsa has been reduced to 7. 5 lacs or 25 lives insured between 5-7 agency years. Clause 4 requires consent of the agent prior to allotment clause 5 provides that agents cannot be allotted if his/her performance exceeds the nbsa as well as number of lives stipulated therein. If either of the two limits is exceeded, the agent becomes unallotable. True copy of the circular letter dated 23. 6. 92 is Annexure 2. Clause 4 requires consent of the agent prior to allotment clause 5 provides that agents cannot be allotted if his/her performance exceeds the nbsa as well as number of lives stipulated therein. If either of the two limits is exceeded, the agent becomes unallotable. True copy of the circular letter dated 23. 6. 92 is Annexure 2. Thereafter another circular was issued on 5. 1. 93 vide Annexure 3. It hiked the NBSA from 7. 5 lacs to 10 lacs. However, the duration was reduced from 5-7 years to 3 years. It is alleged in para 12 of the petition the petitioner cannot be said to be covered by it, in so far as the matter of attachment/detachment is concerned. Her NBSA was much more than the limit specified in regard to the sum or number of lives insured. Hence it is alleged that the impugned order is illegal. It is alleged that the agency of the petitioner has been detached from Sri S. K. Jain and shifted by order dated 16. 6. 2000 vide Annexure 4. The petitioner made representation against that order on 12. 7. 2000 vide Annexure 5 but to no avail. Another representation dated 24. 8. 2000 is annexure 6 and reminders are Annexures 7 and 8. The petitioner received letter of Manager (Sales) dated 22. 9. 2000 stating that the impugned order was passed in accordance with the relevant rules and cannot be reviewed or revised. True copy of the letter dated 22. 9. 2000 is Annexure 9. The petitioner made representations to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority vide Annexures 10 and 11 but to no avail. It is alleged in para 22 of the petition that before attaching the petitioner with Shri Bhatia her consent was never obtained. It is further alleged that the petitioners performance being outstanding she cannot be attached/detached. It is alleged in para 28 of the petition that the petitioner was working with S. K. Jain and under his guidance she was able to give a business of Rs. 60 lacs within seven months. It is alleged in para 29 that the petitioner does not wish to be associated with shri Bhatia for certain personal reason. In fact the entire business has come to a grinding halt. ( 3 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Life Insurance Corporation. We have perused the same. 60 lacs within seven months. It is alleged in para 29 that the petitioner does not wish to be associated with shri Bhatia for certain personal reason. In fact the entire business has come to a grinding halt. ( 3 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Life Insurance Corporation. We have perused the same. In para 4 it is stated that Shri s. K. Garg was granted agency by the Life Insurance corporation in 1992 under the organization of Shri A. K. Bhatia Development officer. Since the grant of agency Shri S. K. Garg is under the organization of Shri A. K. Bhatia till today. He is not a direct agent. In para 6 it is stated that A. B. M. Sales interviewed the petitioner at the time of processing of the agency application. However the petitioner neither at the time of interview nor at the time of granting the agency ever disclosed the fact that she was going to be married with Shri s. K. Jain. The Corporations Central Office, bombay on 26. 12. 1975 had issued a circular pertaining to the appointment of agent and disclosure of relationship with the employees of the Corporation, its medical examiners and agents by the applicants for agency. The decision of the competent authority for continuance of this agency should be obtained otherwise such agent would be deemed to have committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the corporation and his/her agency would be liable to be terminated. ( 4 ) ANOTHER circular was issued by the central Office Bombay on 24. 4. 1980. Under clause 3 of the said Circular it has been clarified that where near relation of an agent working under a Development Officer is recruited as agent then the new agent is to be placed under the same Development Officer. A true copy of the circular dated 24. 4. 1980 is annexure CA 2. In para 9 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner despite her marriage with S. K. Garg never informed the corporation regarding acquisition of relationship by her marriage. In para 10 it is stated that Shri A. K. Bhatia Development Officer made a complaint on 10. 1. 2000 that the petitioner was granted agency on the basis of false statement and misrepresentation and suppression of fact. In para 10 it is stated that Shri A. K. Bhatia Development Officer made a complaint on 10. 1. 2000 that the petitioner was granted agency on the basis of false statement and misrepresentation and suppression of fact. Shri A. K. Bhatia prayed that the petitioner agent should be attached with him as both the petitioner and Shri S. K. Garg were living together as husband and wife under one roof at Kedar Nath Building, Sagar Sarai, Budh bazar, Moradabad. A copy of the complaint dated 10. 1. 2000 is Annexure CA 3. On this complaint the Divisional Manager, Life Insurance corporation of India, Meerut called for a comment from the Branch Manager, moradabad on 23. 3. 2000. A copy of letter dated 23. 3. 2000 is Annexure CA 4. The branch Manager gave a reply vide Annexure ca 5. On 29. 4. 2000 the petitioner made an application to the Branch Manager, Life Insurance corporation, Moradabad praying that she should not be attached with Shri A. K. Bhatia and she would not be in a position to carry on her agency except with Sanjay Kumar Jain development Officer. A copy of application of the petitioner dated 29. 4. 2000 is Annexure ca 6. In para 14 it is stated that the case of the petitioner is of attachment and detachment on the basis of circulars dated 26. 12/75 and 24. 4. 1980. . In para 15 it is stated that the petitioner obtained the agency with mala fide intention and suppression of the fact. In para 17 it is stated that the petitioner was married to Shri S. K. Garg subsequent to obtaining of the agency, therefore she was to be attached with the Organization of Shri A. K. Bhatia as per circular dated 24. 4. 1980. ( 5 ) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. In para 6 of the same it is stated that the petitioner was not married with Shri S. K. Garg at the time of granting agency. ( 6 ) FROM the facts disclosed in this petition it appears that the petitioner was granted the agency on 30. 11. 99, and she married Shri s. K. Garg on 2. 12. 99, that is, only 2 days later. It is not possible to believe that on 30. 11. ( 6 ) FROM the facts disclosed in this petition it appears that the petitioner was granted the agency on 30. 11. 99, and she married Shri s. K. Garg on 2. 12. 99, that is, only 2 days later. It is not possible to believe that on 30. 11. 99 the petitioner did not know that 2 days she was going to get married. Hence she should have disclosed to the Corporation before getting the agency on 30. 11. 99 that on 2. 12. 99 she was getting married to Shri S. K. Garg. ( 7 ) AS regard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners performance was so good that she does not come within the purview of the criterion for attachment/detachment, it has been stated in paras 19 to 22 and 24 of the counter affidavit that the circular letter dated 20. 1. 92 relates to direct agents, but the petitioner was neither appointed as direct agent nor become a direct agent on account of exigency referred to in clause B of the circular dated 20. 1. 92. The petitioner was never appointed as a direct agent. It is only from direct agent that consent has to be taken as to whether he maybe attached/detached. Hence we are in agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. In our opinion the petitioner not being a direct agent cannot get the benefit of circular letter dated 20. 1. 92. There is no illegality in the order impugned. The writ petition is dismissed. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, on the facts of the case we are of the opinion that since the relation between shri Bhatia and the petitioner are obviously strained, the Corporation may consider attaching her with some other agent. Writ petition dismissed. .