Judgment : The parties to and the subject matter of these two Writ Petitions are common. Therefore, they are heard and being disposed of together. 2. The petitioner was granted licence as a Surveyor and Loss Assessor (Insurance Intermediary) in the year 1986. His licence was being renewed from time to time and the same was last renewed in the year 2006 and valid till 8-12-2011. 3. The licence granted to the petitioner was governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 (for short “the 1938 Act”), the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority Act, 1999 (for short “the 1999 Act”), the Insurance Rules, 1939 (for short “the Rules”) and the Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors (Licencing, Professional Requirements and Code of Conduct) Regulations, 2000 (for short “the Regulations”). The petitioner was granted licence as an individual surveyor under the Regulations. He was granted licence to undertake jobs under different categories for different Departments as under: Depts Fire Mrn Cargo Mrn Hull Engg. Motor Misc. LOP Category A A Nil A Nil Nil B In the year 2002, the petitioner and another person by name Dinesh Chand Jain have come together to incorporate a company before the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat, in the name and style of M/s. Keypesens Surveyors Private Limited (for short “the Company”). It is not in dispute that while M/s. Keypesens is a proprietory concern owned by the petitioner with PAN No.AAATPS5134Q, the incorporated Company with the petitioner and the said Dineshchand Jain as its Directors, has a separate PAN number i.e., AABCK9908M. In the year 2008, in a Special Civil Application filed in the High Court of Gujarat by M/s. Giriraj Pharma, it came to the notice of the respondent that loss assessment was made by the Company. The said case was disposed of by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court by order dated 5-9-2008 wherein while directing the respondent to pay the undisputed amount to the petitioner therein, the High Court has left it open to the respondent to initiate appropriate action if it is found that the licenced surveyor has acted in violation of the statutory provisions. Thereafter, the respondent has issued notice dated 23-9-2008 to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why appropriate action should not be initiated against him. A reply was sent by the petitioner to the said notice on 10-10-2008. Thereafter, the respondent has issued notice dated 23-9-2008 to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why appropriate action should not be initiated against him. A reply was sent by the petitioner to the said notice on 10-10-2008. After holding personal hearing during which the petitioner has admitted to the using and signing the letter heads of the Company while acting as the surveyor and loss assessor, and after a detailed discussion of the contents of the show cause notice, explanation and the legal position, the respondent concluded as under : “The Surveyor has represented himself as a corporate surveyor and loss assessor, although not licensed in this regard and thus has failed to behave ethically and with integrity in his professional pursuits which include fair dealing and truthfulness. He has thus failed to discharge his duties in a satisfactory and professional manner resulting in the violation of the code of conduct as specified by the Authority.” Considering the gravity of the violation, the respondent has cancelled the licence granted to the petitioner in exercise of the power vested under Section 14(1) of the 1999 Act r/w. Regulation 8 (4)(iv) of the Regulations. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22620/2009 before this court. This Court, by order dated 22-10-2009 in WPMP No.29364/2009 granted stay of the order of cancellation of the petitioner’s licence. As the licence period was expiring on 8-12-2011, the petitioner has filed an application for renewal of the same on 20-9-2011. As the same was not considered by the respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.34348/2011. This Court by interim order dated 28-12-2011 directed the respondent to pass appropriate order on the renewal application. The respondent issued notice dated 7-1-2012 to the petitioner to show cause as to why renewal shall not be refused. The petitioner filed his written submissions on 17-1-2012 to the said show-cause-notice and additional written submissions dated 1-12-2012. The respondent has issued a second show-cause-notice on 17-2-2012 to which the petitioner filed his written submissions on 7-3-2012. By order dated 27-3-2012, the respondent has rejected the petitioner’s application for renewal of the licence. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11650/2012. By order dated 24-4-2012, this Court has granted an interim order for a limited period and the said order was extended by order dated 23-7-2012. 4. The respondent filed separate counter-affidavits in both the Writ Petitions. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11650/2012. By order dated 24-4-2012, this Court has granted an interim order for a limited period and the said order was extended by order dated 23-7-2012. 4. The respondent filed separate counter-affidavits in both the Writ Petitions. 5. I have heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P. Naveen Rao, learned counsel (as he then was) for the respondent. 6. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, made the following submissions on behalf of the petitioner: 7. That the petitioner has merely used the letter head of the Company in the course of his acting as the licenced surveyor of the respondent and that if the said act constitutes violation of the 1938 Act, 1999 Act, the Rules and the Regulations, the same is purely technical in nature, which, at the most, may warrant some penalty and that the extreme action of cancellation of the licence is highly arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate to the gravity of the violation alleged; and that the respondent has acted with invidious discrimination against the petitioner, as, in similar circumstances it has condoned the violations of two other Insurance Surveyors by imposing penalties. 8. Opposing the above submissions, Sri P. Naveen Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the petitioner has not merely used the letter head but also claimed bills in the name of the Company and that as the petitioner has indulged in serious violations of the statutory provisions by undertaking surveys under the miscellaneous portfolio, which an individual licensee is not entitled to undertake, the penalty of cancellation of the licence is not only appropriate but also mandatory. While denying the plea of the petitioner that the respondent has acted with discrimination, the learned counsel submitted that as the petitioner has violated Sections 42-D and 64-UM of the 1938 Act and the Regulations in general and Regulation No.15 (6) in particular, the cancellation of his licence is mandatory in view of Section 42(4)(g) of the 1938 Act r/w. Regulation No.15 of the Regulations. 9. From the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties with reference to the record, the following Points emerge for consideration: 1. 9. From the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties with reference to the record, the following Points emerge for consideration: 1. Whether the petitioner has merely used the Company’s letter head in the course of the business, and if so, whether the same constitutes technical violation of the provisions of the 1938 Act, the 1999 Act, the Rules and the Regulations and whether the cancellation and subsequent renewal of licence by the respondent are correct. 2. Whether the respondent has singled out the petitioner for a differential treatment by discriminating him from other similarly situated licencees. Re Point No.1: The gravamen of the charge against the petitioner is that both himself and Dineshchand Jain, who together constituted the Company, were granted individual licences as Surveyors and Loss Assessors and that the petitioner has undertaken the work of survey and loss assessment and submitted reports under the umbrella of the Company, which though a registered entity, was not licenced to act as a corporate surveyor and loss assessor. Post cancellation of the licence, two show cause notices dated 7-1-2012 and 17-2-2012 were issued to the petitioner. In the former show-cause-notice, the respondent has taken specific note of the stand taken by the petitioner in W.P.No.22620/2009 filed questioning order dated 15-9-2009 cancelling the licence, as reflected in the interim order dated 22-10-2009 granted by this Court wherein it was observed that the petitioner stated that except using the letter head of the Company, he has never represented to be a corporate surveyor and that no acts of professional misconduct or violation of ethics were attributed. In paragraph-3 of the show-cause-notice, it is specifically alleged that the due diligence conducted by the respondent and the information received by it revealed that the petitioner has not only undertaken the survey jobs in the name of the Company and issued survey reports in the letter head of the Company, but also received survey fee payments in the name of the Company. The respondent has enclosed a copy of the survey report submitted to M/s. Cholamandalam and Form 16-A indicating that the petitioner has not only utilized the letter head of the Company but also received survey fees in the Company’s name, and thus misrepresented to the respondent by undertaking survey jobs in the name of the Company which is not licenced to act as a corporate surveyor and loss assessor. The respondent also referred to Form 16-A issued by the New India in the name of Kalyan Prasad Sen (petitioner) & the Company under PAN number AATPS5134Q. In the second show-cause-notice issued after personal hearing was held on 17-1-2012, it was alleged that the petitioner was undertaking survey jobs, issuing survey reports and receiving survey fees in the name of the Company and thereby misrepresenting as a Corporate Surveyor. It was further alleged that after the personal hearing, the respondent has received information and documents from the insurers showing survey fee payments made to the Company during the years 2005-09 under PAN No.AABCK9908M. It was also alleged that the fact that the survey fee payments were received in the name of the Company for undertaking survey jobs under PAN Number AABCK9908M was admitted by the petitioner and the same was made part of the Minutes of the hearing. The following specific allegations were therefore made in the later show-cause-notice: • That you have not only undertaken survey jobs in the name of the Company M/s. Kaypsens Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. (unlicensed entity) and submitted reports in the letter head of the above mentioned Company as you have been maintaining all throughout but have also received survey fees in the Company’s name under PAN No.AABCK9908M and thus have misrepresented as corporate surveyor. • Copies of Form 16A received from insurers for survey fee payments made in the name of M/s. Kaypsens Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. under PAN No.AABCK9908M, enclosed herewith. • It is clear that it is no longer a merely a case of using letterhead of an unlicensed company but it is well thought out arrangement to accept and receive fees in the name of unlicensed company. • That you have conducted business in the name of M/s. Kaypsens Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. (unlicensed entity). • That you have failed to disclose this information earlier, and have behaved unethically and without integrity in professional pursuits which is in violation of Regulation (15)(1) relating to code of conduct which is a disqualification to act as a surveyor and loss assessor as stated under Section 42D of Insurance Act, 1938. 11. In the reply given to the second show-cause-notice, the petitioner has not denied the allegations regarding submission of the bills and receipt of payments in the name of the Company. 11. In the reply given to the second show-cause-notice, the petitioner has not denied the allegations regarding submission of the bills and receipt of payments in the name of the Company. However, the petitioner sought to justify the said acts by claiming that never at any point of time, he has misrepresented as a corporate surveyor; that the survey jobs were done in the individual capacities quoting individual surveyor licence numbers of himself and Mr. Dineshchand Jain; that the Company has become defunct from 25-8-2008; that the fee received by the Company was retained by Mr. Dineshchand Jain; and that all the surveys done against the said fee were shown in the performance report of Mr. Dineshchand Jain only. 12. In paragraph-13 of the order rejecting renewal of the petitioner’s licence, the respondent has held as under: “The fact that the company M/s. Kaypsens Surveyors Private Limited has received survey fee payments and was thereby conducting business as surveyors and loss assessors in Gujarat was neither brought to the notice of the Authority nor pleaded in the affidavit filed by the Surveyor before Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2009. It was only in the personal hearing on 17th January 2012, that the Surveyor submitted before the Authority that the unlicensed company M/s. Kaypsens Surveyors Private Limited has conducted survey jobs and received survey fees under the PAN No.AABCK9908M.” In paragraph-16, while rejecting the petitioner’s plea that the Company was incorporated along with another licenced surveyor for the sake of convenience and mutual assistance, the respondent rendered a categorical finding that the Company was formed with an intent to conduct business as survey and loss assessors in the name of the Company itself and that the same is contrary to Regulation No.15(6) of the Regulations which ordains that no surveyor and loss assessor shall accept or perform work which he is not competent to undertake. The respondent further found that by conducting business in the name of the Company, the surveyor has failed to behave ethically and with integrity in his professional pursuits and has violated Regulation No.15(1) of the Regulations relating to the code of conduct for licensed surveyors and loss assessors. On that premises, the petitioner’s application for renewal of the licence was rejected by the respondent. 13. On that premises, the petitioner’s application for renewal of the licence was rejected by the respondent. 13. From the uncontroverted facts discussed above, the following facts emerge: The petitioner and Dineshchand Jain were individual licencees. They joined together to form the Company in the name and style of M/s. Kaypsens Surveyors Private Limited. They have undertaken the survey and loss assessment work in the Company’s name and bills were submitted to the insurers and the same were collected in the name of the Company as evident from Forms 16-A issued by the insured in the name of the Company itself. Even though the petitioner has maintained that except using the letter head for the sake of convenience, the Company was not involved in the job of survey and loss assessment based on which this Court has granted interim suspension of the order of the respondent canceling the licence, it has emerged during the personal hearing held on 17-1-2012 that the survey work was undertaken in the Company’s name and survey fees were received under PAN No.AABCK9908M, which pertains to the Company as different from PAN No.AATPS5134Q, which pertains to the petitioner. 14. In this context, it is useful to refer to the relevant legal provisions. Section 42 of the 1938 Act deals with Licensing of insurance agents. Sub-section (4) thereof enumerates disqualifications for continuance/renewal of licence. Under sub-section (5) of Section 42, if an insurance agent has knowingly contravened any of the provisions of the Act, the authority may cancel his licence. Section 42-D deals with Issue of licence to intermediary or insurance intermediary. Under sub-section (5)(g) thereof, a person, inter alia, is disqualified to continue as an intermediary or an insurance intermediary, if he violates the code of conduct as may be specified by the Regulations made by the authority. Section 64UM of the 1938 Act deals with Licensing of surveyors and loss assessors. Under sub-section (1)(G) thereof, if the authority is satisfied that the holder of licence has made any statement which is false in material particulars with regard to his eligibility for obtaining such licence or has after the issue or renewal of licence, acquired any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 42, it may, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the holder of licence of being heard, by order, cancel the licence and notify such cancellation in the Official Gazette. Under sub-section (1-A) of Section 64UM, every surveyor and loss assessor shall comply with the code of conduct in respect of their duties, responsibilities and other professional requirements as may be specified by the Regulations made by the authority. 15. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 42-D, 64UM and 114-A of the 1938 Act and Section 26 of the 1999 Act, made the Regulations. Regulation No.8 laid down the procedure for grant or renewal of licence or suspension or cancellation thereof. Sub-clause (3) thereof empowers the authority to cancel licence where it is found that a surveyor and loss assessor suffers from any of the disqualifications or has knowingly contravened any provisions of the 1999 Act. Sub-clause (4) of Regulation No.8 empowers the authority to refuse to grant or renew the licence or suspend or cancel a licence already granted if the surveyor and loss assessor acquired any of the disqualifications provided under sub-section (4) of Section 42 of the 1938 Act r/w. Clause D of sub-section (1) of Section 64 UM of the 1938 Act. 16. Chapter IV of the Regulations envisaged the Duties and responsibilities of a surveyor and loss assessor. Regulation No.13(1) obligates the surveyor and loss assessor to strictly adhere to the code of conduct. 17. Chapter V of the Regulations provided for categorization of surveyors. Under sub-regulation (3) of Regulation No.14, the categorization shall consist of allocation of one or more specified departments of insurance business, based on the factors mentioned in sub-regulation (1) and shall include categorization of the surveyors and loss assessors into three categories, namely, Category-A, Category-B and Category-C. Under sub-regulation (4), every surveyor and loss assessor, whether a company or firm or an individual, shall be eligible to carry on the work as a surveyor or loss assessor, as per the categorization specified in the licence. 18. Chapter VI of the Regulations laid down the Code of conduct. Sub-regulation (5) of Regulation No.15 forbids a surveyor and loss assessor to accept or perform survey works in areas for which he does not hold a licence. 19. As noted hereinbefore, the petitioner was granted licence under different categories for different Departments. 18. Chapter VI of the Regulations laid down the Code of conduct. Sub-regulation (5) of Regulation No.15 forbids a surveyor and loss assessor to accept or perform survey works in areas for which he does not hold a licence. 19. As noted hereinbefore, the petitioner was granted licence under different categories for different Departments. The various statutory provisions discussed above would reveal that the insurance intermediaries and the surveyors and loss assessors shall strictly adhere to the code of conduct envisaged by the Regulations besides acting in conformity with the provisions of Sections 42, 42D and 64UM of the 1938 Act. The surveyor and loss assessors are prohibited from undertaking survey works in the areas for which they do not hold licence. It is the specific case of the respondent, with reference to which there is no dispute, that the licenced areas for individual surveyors and loss assessors to perform survey works are limited, compared to the licenced areas of the corporate entities. It was specifically alleged that the petitioner formed the Company with an intention to conduct business under its umbrella. The petitioner who feigned innocence in this regard was got exposed when it came to light that contrary to his initial pleading that he was merely using the letter head of the Company, he was not only conducting business in the name of the Company but also collecting fees from the insurers, as evident from Forms 16-A issued by the insured. In the face of these proven facts, it is not possible to accept the plea of the petitioner that the alleged violation is purely technical in nature. On the contrary, the petitioner has not only conducted business in the name of the Company without obtaining licence, but has even gone to the extent of misrepresenting to the respondent that he was merely using the Company’s letter heads, till his bluff was called when the respondent stumbled on the material such as Forms 16-A issued by the insured clearly showing that the payments were made to the account of the Company under PAN No.AABCK9108M. These undeniable facts clearly and completely justified the respondent in canceling the licence and also refusing to renew the licence by holding that the petitioner has failed to behave ethically and with integrity in his professional pursuits and thereby violated Regulation No.15(1) of the Regulations relating to the Code of conduct of surveyors and loss assessors. This Point is accordingly held against the petitioner. 20. Re Point No.2: In support of his plea that the respondent has discriminated between the petitioner and the other licencees/Insurance companies, the petitioner has filed orders dated 27-2-2012 and 16-1-2012 rendered by the respondent in the cases of M/s. Sahara Life Insurance Company Ltd. and M/s. Future Generali Life Insurance Company Ltd., respectively. A perusal of the order passed in the case of M/s. Sahara Life Insurance Company Ltd. shows that on the basis of the inspection held by the respondent, as many as 23 issues were raised and discussed. Out of these issues, Issue No.19 pertains to soliciting business through dummy codes and paying compensation in violation of Section 42 of the 1938 Act. The respondent has considered the representation of the said insurer that the cases cited were for the intervening period of the licence expiry and renewal of licenced agents and that the dummy code was used only to register business in stray cases. While holding that such explanation was not acceptable and that the insurer has acted in clear violation of Circular dated 27-3-2003 and Section 42 of the 1938 Act, the respondent imposed a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs. A similar irregularity was found against M/s. Future Generali Life Insurance Company Ltd., on which a penalty of Rs.20 lakhs was imposed for the said violation. 21. In my opinion, no parallel can be drawn between the case on hand and those two cases as the nature of the allegations against those insurers is substantially at variance. It needs to be noted that neither the validity of the said two orders passed by the respondent are the subject matter of dispute or the parties in whose favour those orders are passed, are before this Court. Therefore, the justifiability or otherwise in the respondent letting off those two Insurance Companies by imposing fine cannot be judged in this Writ Petition. Therefore, the justifiability or otherwise in the respondent letting off those two Insurance Companies by imposing fine cannot be judged in this Writ Petition. As the allegations against those two Insurance Companies and the petitioner are completely dissimilar, it will be arduous to draw a comparison between these cases. It is needless to observe that the decision in each case depends upon the nature and gravity of the allegations and the attendant circumstances. While this Court, for the aforementioned reasons, is unable to render any finding as to whether the imposition of penalty on the said two Insurance Companies was proper or not, on the facts of this case, it has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has indulged in serious unethical practice of running business in the name of an unlicensed company, which undoubtedly warrants a serious penalty such as cancellation of licence. Even if for any reason the respondent has shown lenience towards the said two Insurance Companies, this Court is of the opinion that if at all, they deserved higher penalty rather than the petitioner being let off with a lesser penalty. 22. For the above mentioned reasons, both the Writ Petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed.