JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - The petitioner is an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter called the "LIC") since March, 1973 and claims to have an outstanding professional career. The petitioner calls in question the action of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 in entertaining and processing the proposal for "Keyman" insurance covering Opposite Party No. 5 through Opposite Party No. 4 when the proposal submitted by the petitioner for insuring Opposite Party No. 5 was pending consideration before the LIC. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner as an agent submitted a proposal on behalf of Opposite Party No. 5 on 10.9.1987 for Keyman Insurance before the LIC, Bhubaneswar Branch. When the matter was pending consideration, the petitioner came to know that the proposal in respect of self-same Opposite Party No. 5 has been resubmitted by Opposite Party No. 4 and that has been registered for a higher sum and the matter is being processed by Opposite Party No. 3, the Branch Manager. The petitioner alleges that during pendency of the first proposal submitted by him, the LIC could not have entertained the second proposal submitted by any other agent nor could it be registered and processed in view of Regulation 8(1)(d) of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulation, 1972. It is alleged that in view of Regulation 8(1)(d), an agent is not to interfere with any proposal introduced by any other agent and if that is done not only the other agent has violated the conditions of agency, but the LIC has also contravened the provision by entertaining the second proposal. The petitioner claims that the said proposal submitted by Opposite Party No. 4 has to be held as illegal and otherwise if that is entertained, it has to be treated to have been presented by the petitioner as the agent. 3. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 through the Manager, Legal and Housing and Property Finance, has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claim made by the petitioner. It is the case of Opposite Parties 1 to 3 that the Branch Office at Bhubaneswar is not aware of any proposal of "Keyman" insurance said to have been negotiated by the petitioner. It is the case of Opposite Parties 1 to 3 that the Branch Office at Bhubaneswar is not aware of any proposal of "Keyman" insurance said to have been negotiated by the petitioner. The allegation of the petitioner that the said proposal was pending consideration by the LIC during that time the second proposal has been submitted by Opposite Party No. 7 has been denied. The genuineness of the correspondence said to have been made by LIC as in Annexure-3 has hot only been denied but it has been stated that the genuineness or origination of the letter is doubtful. According to Opposite Party No. 2, the proposal bearing No. 5503-90-583 on the life of Shri Tarakanta Mohapatra, as the Keyman proposed by Messrs Konark Cylinders and Containers (P) Ltd. (hereinafter called the "Company") is the only proposal registered in the Proposal Register of the Branch Office on 9.3.1991. The proposal said to have been presented by the petitioner has neither been registered in the Branch Office nor was it pending consideration. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 have given the details and conditions under which a proposal is considered. However, we need not delve into such question. 4. Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 in their separate counters have indicated that on 10.9.1987 the Board of Directors of the Company had taken a resolution for obtaining a Keyman insurance policy through the petitioner in respect of Opposite Party No. 5, the Managing Director of the Company. But by Resolution dated 27.7.1989, copy of which is Annexure-B, the Board of Directors of the Company resolved to drop the proposal vide Resolution dated 10.9.1987 for Keyman insurance on the life of Mr. T. K. Mohapatra, the Managing Director, due to the Company's financial status and diversification plans. However, by Resolution dated 20.9.1990, the Board of Directors resolved to have a Keyman life insurance policy on the life of Shri Tarakanta Mohapatra, the Managing Director of the Company, for a term of twenty years under the plan Endowment Assurance Policy for Rs. 1,00,00,000.00 through Opposite Party No. 4, Miss Sabita Prusty, agent of LIC. It has also been submitted that the proposal earlier submitted is of no consequence since no premium was paid nor it was pursued in view of the subsequent Resolution dated 27.7.1989 of the Board of Directors. 5. 1,00,00,000.00 through Opposite Party No. 4, Miss Sabita Prusty, agent of LIC. It has also been submitted that the proposal earlier submitted is of no consequence since no premium was paid nor it was pursued in view of the subsequent Resolution dated 27.7.1989 of the Board of Directors. 5. In view of the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made at the Bar, it is clear that the petitioner as an agent had moved a proposal for insuring the life of Shri Tarakanta Mohapatra, Managing Director of Messrs Konark Cylinders and Containers Pvt. Ltd. as per Resolution dated 10.9.1987. The said proposal was dropped by Resolution dated 27.7.1989 of the Company and admittedly by then nothing had happened to the proposal submitted by the petitioner nor the said proposal was registered nor any premium had been paid. In view of the Resolution dated 27.7.1989 of the Board of Directors to drop the proposal and no premium having been paid nor the proposal having been registered by the LIC, it has to be treated as dropped and non-existent. The second proposal mooted or processed through Opposite Party No. 4 in terms of the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company for covering the life of its Managing Director with keyman insurance police has to be treated as a valid proposal and if on that basis the opposite party-LIC has registered and pursued the same and insured the Managing Director, no illegality can be said to have been committed nor has there been any violation of Regulation 8(1)(d) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972, as alleged. There was no bar whatsoever for the second proposal to be initiated, processed and obtained in view of the admitted position that the first proposal was not pending consideration before the LIC nor was it subsisting in view of the Resolution date 27.7.1989 of the Board of Directors. 6. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the Writ Application and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. J.P. Mishra, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed