JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocates. 2. Relevant facts, as emerging from the record are as under. 2.1 The petitioner was granted license to act as an Insurance Agent by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (for short 'IRDA') being License No.3299911 on 17.05.2007. The said license was cancelled / terminated by IRDA without any notice or even intimation to the petitioner, allegedly on the complaint of the brother of the petitioner. The same was displayed on the website of IRDA. Under these circumstances Special Civil Application No.3560 of 2012 was filed, challenging the said action of IRDA, joining the IRDA as party respondent. 2.2 Initially, notice was issued by this Court on 21.03.2012. Considering the undisputed fact that, no procedure whatsoever was followed by the respondent Authority, the petition came to be admitted by this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.M.Thakar) by a speaking order dated 21.06.2012. The said order reads as under. “1. The petitioner has approached with a grievance that though the licence as agent of Insurance Company has been cancelled allegedly after receiving complaint/ representation from petitioner's brother before cancelling the licence any intimation of any nature whatsoever was not issued and any hearing was also not granted. He has also claimed that any order conveying the decision and recording reasons is also not received by the petitioner. The only intimation which he has received is a communication dated 29.11.2011 from the Insurance Company but he has not received any intimation from respondent authority who has, allegedly passed the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision in case of Suresh Chandra Nanhorya vs. Rajendra Rajak & Ors. [ (2006) 7 SCC 800 ]. 2. In response to the notice respondent authorities have filed reply affidavit stating the details and the circumstances on account of which the petitioner's licence is cancelled. One of the reasons stated by the respondent authority in support of its action is that the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria and that 3. From the affidavit it prima facie transpires that any notice of proposed action was not issued or any notice calling for explanation was also not issued and any hearing was also not granted, before taking the impugned action i.e. cancellation of licence. 4. From the affidavit it prima facie transpires that any notice of proposed action was not issued or any notice calling for explanation was also not issued and any hearing was also not granted, before taking the impugned action i.e. cancellation of licence. 4. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the said decision and action on ground of therefore when the said fact came to the notice of the authority, licence of the petitioner came to be cancelled. violation of principle of natural justice. Rule.” 2.3 Based on license given by the IRDA, the Insurance Company – Life Insurance Corporation of India had also accepted the petitioner as its agent, but as the consequence of the above, the agency of the petitioner was treated to have been cancelled by the Life Insurance Corporation of India vide order dated 27.02.2013. Before that, notice was issued to him on 06.02.2013 leveling certain charges against the petitioner, principally with regard to discrepancy in his residential address and thereby he being not eligible to continue as agent etc. After ostensibly giving an opportunity to the petitioner, his agency came to be terminated vide aforesaid order dated 27.02.2013. The operative part of the said order reads as under. “NOW THEREFORE, after considering all the relevant facts, documents and evidence on record, I am convinced that YOU, SHIR RAJESH M JARIWALA, AGENCY CODE NO.4114286R attached to CBO-12/86R, SURAT BRANCH OFFICE are guilty of all the charges levied against you vide show cause notice dated 6th February, 2013 and I therefore order that the Agency of SHRI RAJESH M JARIWALA, AGENCY CODE NO.4114286R attached to CBO-12/86R, SURAT BRANCH OFFICE is hereby terminated as per the provisions contained in the Rule 5(1)(b) and (c) and 16(1) (b) and (d) of the L.I.C. Of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 with effect from the date of this order. Dated at Surat on this 27th February, 2013. Sd/- SR.DIVISIONAL MANAGER (Competent Authority)” 2.4 The said order was challenged before the Appellate Authority of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the said Authority, vide order dated 29.06.2013, set aside the order of the Competent Authority dated 27.02.2013. The operative part of the said order of the Appellate Authority reads as under. (Page:27 and 28 of Special Civil Application No. 5710 of 2014). The operative part of the said order of the Appellate Authority reads as under. (Page:27 and 28 of Special Civil Application No. 5710 of 2014). “I find from the relevant records of the case that subsequent to the cancellation of license by the competent authority, the Senior Divisional Manager, Surat has issued a Show Cause Notice as per the relevant provisions of the Agents Rules proposing termination of agency. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.02.2013, he has terminated the agency of the appellant. Rule 14 of the Agents Rules provides that if the license of an agent is cancelled or is not renewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 42 of the Insurance Act, his appointment as agent shall stand terminated from the date the license is cancelled or as the case may be, from the date the license ceases to be valid. In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Agents Rules, it was not necessary for the Sr. Divisional Manager, Surat to issue a Show Cause Notice dated 06.02.2013 and subsequent order dated 27.02.2013. In view of the infirmity observed in issue of Show Cause Notice and the termination order, I am inclined to set aside the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the Sr. Divisional Manager, Surat. Now, therefore, in exercise off the powers conferred on me under Rule 23 of the Agents Rules, I hereby set aside the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the Sr. Divisional Manager, Surat. However, as the license of the appellant has been cancelled as per Rule 14 of the Agents Rules, the termination of agency of the appellant will stand. The appeal dated 20.03.2013 preferred by Shri Rajesh M. Jariwala is disposed off accordingly. Dated at Mumbai, this 29th day of June, 2013. Sd/- ZONAL MANAGER APPELLATE AUTHORITY” 2.5 The representation of the petitioner to the Chairman of the Life Insurance Corporation of India is disposed of, upholding the order of the Appellate Authority. The same was conveyed to the petitioner on 30.01.2014. This gave rise to Special Civil Application No.5710 of 2014. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the brother of the petitioner had some property dispute with the petitioner. The petitioner had to stay at the address, other than the one shown in the application form as the agent, and the disgruntled brother of the petitioner started making representations to the Authorities. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the brother of the petitioner had some property dispute with the petitioner. The petitioner had to stay at the address, other than the one shown in the application form as the agent, and the disgruntled brother of the petitioner started making representations to the Authorities. It is submitted that, if at all the IRDA had anything to be inquired into, the same was atleast required to be put to the notice of the petitioner and having not done so, the very action of the IRDA which is questioned in Special Civil Application No.3560 of 2012 needs to be interfered with. 3.2 It is further submitted that so far the termination of agency by LIC is concerned, it is solely based on the cancellation of license by IRDA and as the necessary consequence Special Civil Application No. 5710 of 2014 be also allowed. 3.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that even on merits, the allegations against the petitioner was not only not well founded, but was contrary to the record of the State Authority. Learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court through the eligibility criteria, the address of the petitioner where he was staying at the relevant time and the information given by the Public Information Officer of the Surat Municipal Corporation vide letter dated 11.02.2013. It is submitted that thus even on merits, the root action taken by the IRDA was illegal. It is submitted that had notice been given to the petitioner, he could have explained this situation. It is submitted that even on merits it be declared that the action was illegal. 3.4 Learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has worked with utmost sincerity with the Insurance Company and no compliant whatsoever from any policy holder had ever come against the petitioner that he was not working properly. It is only the brother of the petitioner, because of the personal dispute, made complaint which was accepted on its face value by the respondent Authority, which led to this situation and therefore this Court may interference. 4. It is only the brother of the petitioner, because of the personal dispute, made complaint which was accepted on its face value by the respondent Authority, which led to this situation and therefore this Court may interference. 4. On the other hand, Ms.Raval, learned advocate for the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority has submitted that the petitioner was ineligible to be continued as a license holder and therefore the impugned action, which is in Special Civil Application No.3560 of 2012 was taken. Learned advocate has taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit-in-reply dated 09.04.2012 and has submitted that this petition be dismissed. 5. Mr.Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the Life Insurance Corporation of India has submitted that, LIC is not respondent in Special Civil Application No.3560 of 2012. Learned advocate has also taken this Court through the affidavit in reply dated 25.07.2014 in Special Civil Application No. 5710 of 2014 to contend that this petition be dismissed. Learned advocate for the respondent LIC has taken this Court through different documents on record to contend that the petitioner was not eligible to continue as a license holder and as the necessary consequence, as an agent of LIC. It is submitted that both these petitions be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under. 6.1 The cancellation of license by IRDA is indisputably without issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner. On this undisputed position alone, Special Civil Application No.3560 of 2012 needs to be allowed. Reference can be made to the order of this Court dated 21.06.2012 admitting the petition, that even after considering the affidavit in reply, (affidavit on behalf of the IRDA in Special Civil Application No.3560 of 2012), it is undisputed position that the cancellation of license of the petitioner was in gross violation of principles of natural justice. In view of this the said action of IRDA is required to be quashed and set aside. In view of this the said action of IRDA is required to be quashed and set aside. 6.2 So far the termination of agency of the petitioner by the Life Insurance Corporation of India is concerned, though the order of the Competent Authority dated 27.02.2013 speaks of charges against the petitioner, the said order of the Competent Authority is set aside by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.06.2013 and to that extent the order of the Competent Authority dated 27.02.2013 is non-existent and there can not be any interference in the order which does not exist. The order of the Appellate Authority however further reads as under. “However, as the license of the appellant has been cancelled as per Rule 14 of the Agents Rules, the termination of agency of the appellant will stand. The appeal dated 20.03.2013 preferred by Shri Rajesh M. Jariwala is disposed off accordingly.” 6.3 Thus the foundation of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 29.06.2013 to uphold the termination of agency of the petitioner is dependent on cancellation of license by IRDA. Now since the action of the IRDA of canceling the license itself is held to be illegal, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 29.06.2013 would become baseless. For the reasons recorded by the said Authority itself, the said order would collapse. Even without any interference by this Court, it needs to be declared that for the reasons recorded by the Appellate Authority itself, in view of the fact that the cancellation of license by IRDA is set aside, the order dated 29.06.2013 stands cancelled. 7. In view of above, the merits of the matter may not be required to be gone into, however since all the learned advocates have addressed this Court at length in that regard, let the adjudication be not only on technical ground. For this reason, this Court has examined the merits of the matter to the extent necessary and it is found that the petitioner has not suffered any disqualification because of any misconduct as an agent. Not only the petitioner is given due appreciation letters, the working of the petitioner as an agent is not in question even by the Authorities. The root of the controversy was the property dispute between the brothers. Not only the petitioner is given due appreciation letters, the working of the petitioner as an agent is not in question even by the Authorities. The root of the controversy was the property dispute between the brothers. In the weak moments, the aggrieved brother has made representation to different Authorities about the change of address which would land his brother i.e. the petitioner in difficulty. Though the Authorities can not be blamed for taking into the consideration a compliant even from the brother of the petitioner, the bare minimum requirement was to put the same to the notice of the petitioner, which is not done. There is ample material on record, including the population of the area in which the petitioner was residing – Vesu Bharthana (Surat) coupled with the information given by the local Authorities, to hold that the petitioner could not be condemned ineligible to get license or to continue the license as an Insurance Agent. Further, in the growing society, to expect that an agent would not change his residence would be too strict a view that any authority would take. Shifting from an area to adjoining area, for the purpose of schooling of children etc., if otherwise it is not to effect the functioning of the agency, could not have been stretched to the extent of treating the said agent as ineligible. The respondent authorities have acted, as if they were searching for reason to justify the action, which was illegal from its root. It is clear that, in the event the respondent Authorities are asked, as to whether -is it verified in case of all agents periodically that they continue to stay at the same place and address at which the agency is given, the said answer is bound to be NO, however this aspect is not stretched further. It is noted that both these petitions needs to be allowed without going into the merits, for the reasons recorded in para-6.1 and 6.3 above, however since the merits are addressed at length by the learned advocates, these findings are noted to hold that, even on merits the petitioner could not be termed to be ineligible to get or to continue the the license and agency as an insurance agent. For all these reasons, both these petitions need to be allowed. For all these reasons, both these petitions need to be allowed. During the course of hearing, it is agitated by the petitioner that though substantial amount of commission is payable by the Life Insurance Corporation of India to the petitioner for the work which has already been done, the same is not paid to the petitioner only on the ground that the agency is terminated for misconduct. Appropriate order needs to be passed in that regard as well. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 8.1 Both these petitions are allowed. 8.2 The action of IRDA of canceling the license of the petitioner being License No.3299911 is quashed and set aside. Since the license of the petitioner was cancelled and the same is declared illegal by this order, no technical stand would be taken that even otherwise that license has lapsed by this time. License of the petitioner No.3299911 shall be treated to be in force. The procedure for renewal thereof shall be undertaken by the petitioner as well as the concerned respondent. 8.3 The order of the Appellate Authority of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Zonal Manager, Western Zone) dated 22.06.2013 stands quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall continue as its agent. The order of the Competent Authority (Sr. Divisional Manager, Surat) dated 27.02.2013 was already set aside by the Zonal Manager. It is clarified that by the setting aside of the order of the Zonal Manager dated 29.06.2013, the order of the Senior Divisional Manager dated 27.02.2013 is not restored. 8.4 The amount of outstanding commission shall be paid to the petitioner by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, within a period of two months from today. 8.5 Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.