ORDER : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises out of an Oral Order dated 24.6.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.13678 of 2012, whereby, the Petition filed by the original petitioners has been dismissed. 2. The Petition was filed praying inter-alia as under: “A. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction declaring that the commission rate prescribed under the Head of Individual Mediclaim Policies issued by the respondent no.1 Company reducing / altering the acquisition cost/rates of commission in respect of the Individual Health segment as beyond its power, unreasonable and arbitrary and this violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and quashing and setting aside the same. B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to pay and continue to pay licensed agents commission at the prevailing rate prior to the issue or circular dated 23.07.2012, as has been paid hitherto without exercising any cut in the rate of commission. BB. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the circular dated 29.10.2012 issued by respondent no.1, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.” 3. The facts in brief are as under: 3.1. The appellants were the original petitioners by virtue of the license granted by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, Hyderabad under Regulation 42. They were authorized to act as insurance agents for procuring and securing insurance business of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 3.2. It is the case of the appellants – original petitioners that they were acting as agents for insurance business for the last 9 to 13 years. They were also authorized to procure health cover on behalf of the company namely; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 3.3. According to the appellants for the Mediclaim policy floated by the Company, the rate of interest for the agents was fixed @ 15% of the premium. 3.4. By a Circular dated 23.07.2012, the rates of commission were reduced in respect of the individual health segment as under: Individual Mediclaim Policies: For the Insured below the age of 35 years - 15% Between 35 and 55 years.- 10% Above 55 years - 5% 3.5. This reduction of rates of commission was the subject matter of challenge. 3.6. 3.4. By a Circular dated 23.07.2012, the rates of commission were reduced in respect of the individual health segment as under: Individual Mediclaim Policies: For the Insured below the age of 35 years - 15% Between 35 and 55 years.- 10% Above 55 years - 5% 3.5. This reduction of rates of commission was the subject matter of challenge. 3.6. By way of an amendment, the appellants also brought on record a policy circular dated 29.10.2012 which prescribed new rates of commission for individual Mediclaim policies. Age Group Commission/Brokerage Insured below the age of 35 15% Between 35 and 45 12% Above 45 years 10% 4. Pending final hearing of the Petition the Insurance Company came out with a new Circular dated 18.07.2017 reviewing the limits of commission/brokerage and the linkage of commission to the age bands was removed as mandated in the Circular dated 29.10.2012. The commission rates as provided in the Circular dated 18.07.2017 were to be effective from 19.07.2017. Therefore before the learned single judge the question for consideration was the rights of the Appellants to claim difference of the commission paid at the rates fixed under the Circular of 2012 till the same was withdrawn in the year 2017 i.e. approximately for a period of 5 years. 5. Having considered the submissions made by Mr. Vishwas Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 4 as well as Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perusal of the memo of the petition and the reply filed by the regulatory authority/insurance company, what emerges is as under: 5.1. Reading the conditions of the license pursuant to which the Petitioners/Appellants were carrying on the business, reading the conditions, make it clear that the appellants were authorized to sell insurance product on the terms and conditions as stipulated by the insurance company. It was, therefore, clearly established that the appellants were engaged by the Insurance Company in their capacity as agents to sell insurance business for which they were entitled to commission/brokerage for individual Mediclaim policies. 6. Apparently, therefore, it is clear that the relationship of the appellant with the respondent – Insurance Company was that of the Principal and Agent and was clearly and purely contractual. 7. 6. Apparently, therefore, it is clear that the relationship of the appellant with the respondent – Insurance Company was that of the Principal and Agent and was clearly and purely contractual. 7. At the time of appointment of the agent, it is categorically mentioned as under: “It is further agreed to by the agent that in respect of any business where, the company deems it necessary, the company may reduce or increase the commission payable to an agent and the company has liberty to amend, vary or revoke the schedule of commission payable at any time…..” 8. From the perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the insurance company and on record it is further indicated that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has followed the instructions of the Ministry of Finance to restructure the agent’s commission for retail Mediclaim policy as the PSU is a fully owned Government Company. 9. Section 40(3) of the Insurance Act, 1938 reads as under: “40(3). No person shall pay or contract to pay to an insurance agent and no insurance agent shall receive or contract to receive, by way of commission or remuneration in any form, in respect of any policy of general insurance issued in India by an insurer after the commencement of the Insurance (amendment) Act, 1968 and effected through an in- surance agent an amount exceeding fifteen percent of the premium payable on the policy where the policy relates to fire or marine insurance or miscellaneous insurance.” The Circular, therefore is issued within the frame work of law and as per the directions of the Ministry of Finance. 10. On the question of discrimination raised by Mr. Shah in context of the respondent – Insurance Company being the only company as compared to the other insurance companies in awarding of brokerage or commission, since the relationship as we have so stated in the earlier part of the order being purely contractual in nature and the appellants having agreed that they would abide by the conditions which provided the discretion of the company to reduce or increase the commission payable to the agents, it is not open for the appellants to challenge such policy decision on the ground of it being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. To the submission made by Mr. 11. To the submission made by Mr. Shah that there are cursory observations made by the learned Single Judge which are in paragraph No.7 of the decision and which are contrary to the observations made in paragraph No.11 thereof, it is clear that fixing of brokerage or commission is always subject to market strategy, scenario and the business procurement strategy and the appellants are mere commission agents and have no legal or fundamental right to claim a particular rate of commission and the policy of the insurance company based on the market conditions cannot be faulted. It is in this context that the learned Single Judge was made his observations in paragraph Nos.7 and 11 of the decision. 12. The observations of the learned Single Judge in these paragraphs cannot be read in isolation and if it is read in context of the observations so made in paragraph Nos.8 to 10 thereof which read as under: “8. Insofar as invoking of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, for which strenuous arguments are made on the ground that other public sector Insurance Companies have taken decision in favour of their respective agents so as to cover period of 5 years between the two circulars fixing rates for commission whereas respondent-Insurance Company has not taken such decision is concerned, the Court is not inclined to invoke Article 226 for alleged violation of Article 14 as firstly each public sector Insurance Company is a separate identity and the decision taken is as per their respective commercial wisdom. Secondly, the purpose behind the petition now is only of the financial implication and that too for a specific period and such situation cannot be treated so gross a violation of fundamental rights so as to invoke Article 226. 9. The Apex Court in the case of The State of Assam & Anr. Vs. Ajit Kumar Sarma & Ors., reported in AIR 1965 SC, 1196 has held that no writ to be issued to interfere any rules or regulations which did not have any statutory force. In the instant case also, claim for difference in the rate of commission is not based on any statutory right and therefore, the Court is not inclined to invoke Article 226. 10. In the instant case also, claim for difference in the rate of commission is not based on any statutory right and therefore, the Court is not inclined to invoke Article 226. 10. In the decision in the case of R. Krishnamurthy (supra), the Apex Court was considering whether the High Court could have issued mandamus commanding the appellate to carry out census in a particular manner and at that stage, the Apex Court observed that the Courts are required to understand policy decision framed by the executive and if a policy decision is arbitrary, it may invite the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Court has proceeded to hold that when the notification was not under assail and the same is in consonance with the Act, it is really unfathomable how the High Court could issue direction as to the manner in which the census would be carried out. This, in the opinion of this Court, will not take the case of the petitioner any further.” 13. We are, therefore in complete agreement with the decision of the learned Single Judge and finding no merit in the appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Connected Civil Application also stands dismissed. No costs.