Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 893 (PAT)

ANJANI KUMAR NATHANI v. UNION OF INDIA

2011-04-29

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2011
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents in all the aforesaid five writ cases. 2. All the petitioners of these writ petitions are Licensed Surveyors and Loss Assessors and are Members of the Association of Loss Assessors and Surveyors of Bihar. The said Association has a President, namely Satish Sharan. 3. In all the aforesaid writ petitions the respective petitioners are challenging IRDA/Notice dated 19.09.2001 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, letter dated 11.09.2001 and IRDA Circular dated 04.12.2002 by which limitations and restrictions on the work of categorized Surveyors and Loss Assessors had been imposed by the authority and also challenging order of IRDA for Surveyors and Loss Assessors dated 30.03.2002 by which the categorization of Surveyors and Loss Assessors had been implemented with effect from 01.04.2002 as well as the parameters for Categorization of Surveyors published by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority on 14.05.2002 and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. It is not in dispute that the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act? for the sake of brevity) came into force on 19.04.2000 giving powers to the authorities to grant license. As per section 26 of the Act regulations were framed on 24.11.2000 (Annexure-2), clause 14 whereof is regarding categorization but no restriction is provided on the number of departments to be allotted nor there is any financial restrictions. 5. The claim of the petitioners is that on 20.08.2001 they were informed about the grades given to the petitioners in different departments and they were asked to choose three departments. Thereafter on 19.09.2001 notice was given by IRDA limiting option to three departments and imposing financial limits in each category as per its Annexure-1 dated 11.09.2001. The Association represented against the said act of the authorities on 29.10.2001, but no action was taken by the authorities concerned on the said objection. 6. It transpires that W.P. No.22725 of 2001 was filed by one P. Soundara Rajan in the Madras High Court challenging the said notice etc. but the said writ petition was dismissed on 22.11.2001. Against the said order W.A. No.176 of 2002 was filed by the said person in which order dated 12.02.2002 was passed by a Division Bench of Madras High Court ordering status quo. but the said writ petition was dismissed on 22.11.2001. Against the said order W.A. No.176 of 2002 was filed by the said person in which order dated 12.02.2002 was passed by a Division Bench of Madras High Court ordering status quo. However, subsequently the said W.A. No.176 of 2002 was disposed of on 14.07.2008 with certain directions. 7. It further transpires that another case bearing W.P. No.43369 of 2002 was filed by the same person challenging order of the authorities dated 30.03.2002 by which the authorities gave effect to categorization since 01.04.2002. In the said writ petition interim injunction was granted by learned Single Judge of Madras High Court vide order dated 04.12.2002 and since then the aforesaid writ petition is pending before the said court. 8. However, in Patna High Court C.W.J.C. No.13064 of 2002 was filed by the Association, whereas C.W.J.C. No.10731 of 2002 was filed by its President challenging the same acts of the authorities. Both the two cases were taken up together by a Bench of this court and they were disposed of vide order dated 19.03.2004 (Annexure-12), as follows: “A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents and reply thereto has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. From the counter affidavit and reply it appears that on similar question the matter is pending in the writ petition bearing No. WP 43369 of 2002 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras and Madras High Court has granted interim injunction vide Annexure-16 to the reply. In compliance of the order of interim injunction, Respondent-Authority vide Annexure-17 themselves have permitted the petitioner of the said case to work in all categories/departments of survey works and directed that the restricted working departments or allotted restricted categories of work shall not be applicable to him from the date of the order of Madras High Court, and, further, that the final decision in the matter shall depend upon the decision of the High Court, which shall have effect from the date of final judgment of the High court. Having regard to the fact that similar question is being considered by Madras High Court, both these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that the petitioners may intervene in the said matter, if so advised, and interim order/decision of Madras High Court shall also govern the case of the petitioners. Having regard to the fact that similar question is being considered by Madras High Court, both these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that the petitioners may intervene in the said matter, if so advised, and interim order/decision of Madras High Court shall also govern the case of the petitioners. The parties will be bound by the decision of Madras High Court. Accordingly, this court directs that the direction given by the authorities, contained in Annexure-16 & 17 shall also be applicable in the case of the petitioners.” 9. Now these writ petitions had been filed in the year 2005 by the petitioners, who are the members of the aforesaid Association, for the same relief. Hence these writ petitions are also being disposed accordingly. Since similar question is being considered by the Madras High Court, all these writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to intervene in W.P. No.43369 of 2002 in the Madras High Court, if so advised, and if such intervention applications are filed therein, the interim orders and final decision of the Madras High Court shall also govern the case of these petitioners and the parties will be bound by the decision of the Madras High Court in the matter.