JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant submitted a proposal for insurance on 12.08.1998 and as per Regulation 08 (2)(b) he was required to make enquiries in regard to the lives to be insured before recommending proposals for acceptance and bring to the notice of the Corporation any circumstances which may adversely affect the risk to be underwritten. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submitted that in the proposal form he clearly mentioned that the petitioner was knowing such person only since last two days, therefore, he has not suppressed any fact. This proposal was approved by the Development officer and that too after obtaining the certificate of the doctor. 3. It is further submitted that since the petitioner-appellant was not knowing the person of whom he submitted the proposal, therefore, he has not committed any wrong. It is submitted that against the Development Officer departmental enquiry was conducted and he was exonerated upon which the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Development Officer has not been exonerated but he has been found guilty and punishment of censure has been awarded. 4. So far as the case of the writ petitioner-appellant is concerned that he was knowing such person only since last two days cannot be a ground because while submitting a proposal the agent is required to enquire into the past of the person to be insured. 5. In view of the above reasons, since the proposal itself was wrong, therefore, the termination of the agency of the writ petitioner was rightly held to be just and proper by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner himself in the same form has submitted that the proposed person is maintining good health. Be it is it may be we do not find any merit in L.P.A. In view of the above reasons this L.P.A. is dismissed.