Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1493 (RAJ)

Sureshchand Sharma v. LIC of India

2014-08-27

M.N.BHANDARI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the letter dated 08.12.2007 whereby agency of the petitioner was cancelled for insurance work. 2. The petitioner submits that he had worked satisfactorily with the respondent for 13 years and given business to their satisfaction. The agency was terminated earlier many times but on request of the petitioner, it was restored. It was again terminated in the year 2004, but no written information was given. It is only when the petitioner sent representation, the impugned letter dated 08.12.2007 was received indicating cancellation of the agency. He submits that before cancellation of agency, no opportunity of hearing was given and otherwise the petitioner was working to the satisfaction of the respondent thus there was no reason to terminate his agency. 3. The OIC, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner could not secure the business to the extent it is required to maintain the agency. His agency was earlier terminated on 01.01.1995, 01.01.1997 & 01.01.2001 but it was restored on humanitarian ground but then also, the petitioner could not improve upon. He failed to archive the target given to him thus proposal was made to terminate his agency. The petitioner remained unsuccessful to secure the business in the year 2004 also. Thus, agency was terminated. The petitioner was informed about it but the writ petition was filed in the year 2009 that is after lapse of 5 years without giving explanation of delay. 4. The petitioner is however getting due commission of the business earlier undertaken by him. The petitioner remained successive defaulter in obtaining business to the extent of the target thus, dis-continuance of his business with cancellation of agency was for justified reasons. 5. Elaborating the facts, it is submitted that in the year 1994, the petitioner could secure only 10 proposals for insurance, whereas minimum was 12. In the year 1996 again, he could secure 10 proposals for insurance, whereas the minimum was 12 thus again in the year 1997, agency was terminated. In the year 2001, he could secure 7 proposals for insurance, whereas minimum was 12 thus on third occasion, his agency was cancelled. The petitioner again failed to archive the target in the year 2004 thus, cancellation of agency in those circumstances may not be interfered. 6. In the year 2001, he could secure 7 proposals for insurance, whereas minimum was 12 thus on third occasion, his agency was cancelled. The petitioner again failed to archive the target in the year 2004 thus, cancellation of agency in those circumstances may not be interfered. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and find that agency of the petitioner for insurance work was terminated in the year 2004 but this writ petition was preferred after 5 years without explaining the delay. It is not the case that petitioner was not knowing about termination of his agency in the year 2004. The perusal of Annexure-5 shows that in September, 2004 itself, new proposal of the petitioner was not accepted and it was marked "agency terminated". The petitioner could get information in the year 2004 itself. Thus even after knowing about termination of agency, writ petition has been filed with unexplained delay of 5 years thus it is hit by laches. 7. Coming to the facts of this case, termination of agency of the petitioner is not for the first time. It was terminated in the year 1995 followed by restoration. It was again terminated in the year 1997 followed by restoration and thereafter, in the year 2001. The petitioner again failed to achieve the target in the year 2004 thus termination of agency in those circumstances cannot be said to be illegal. 8. The issue of principles of natural justice has been raised but the petitioner was asked to justify the reason as to why he could not achieve the target. No explanation could be given other than reason of family circumstances. The matter would have been sent for post decisional hearing if proper justification would have been given by the petitioner. In absence of it, it would be an empty formality. It would otherwise with a gap of 10 years. In the background aforesaid, I do not find any justification even to send the matter back to the respondent. The petitioner is otherwise getting commission as per his entitlement for the work previously undertaken. 9. Looking to the facts given above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******