High Court Karnataka High Court

P Shantilal Jain S/O Pukhrajjee vs Senior Divisional Manager on 3 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
P Shantilal Jain S/O Pukhrajjee vs Senior Divisional Manager on 3 July, 2009
Author: Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT 0;? KARNATAKA, Bm4Gg£%QRE

DATED THIS THE 320 DAY OF Jm;%2¢:;g% f  _

BEFORE"   s "  ~ I J   , 
THE HC)N'BLE MR. JUsT:;:::E A1Z%.AV_i§'€;B. I_f;"£..f:f>z:ARh 

WRIT PETITION mo. 1€i8.5:t§--_17;2_00.9i.S§Di3i'V  « . 4/ I j} '   

BEY'i'WEEN

Pfihantilai Jain,

S/0 Pukhrajjee,

Aged about 58 years,

Agsnt, LIC of India,  _  - 
Srikoti Bui1di;£1g;fl:j,.-      
Near     
C.N.R0aCi, E3ha:__ch3av3';fi1i,V'T'~:,'L_' ',  V
Shimoga---DiSi:'ict';'3 ::;_  '~  ' ~  .  V

 ' V "  %  " __ .. Petitioner
(By Sri.  Z\%{a1::j_12z:é;th;' --Ai:i*J0cate)

AND; ' -V

._ 'V "L Senici iiivjsional Mariager,
 L}€C {3f£nci?'1:aL;    u
L'Di'vi3io1"-23} .v{}fi3E::e',

M;s;'comp1:as<,T1'KSS::3c Building,
Sagar F?,Sad,~"Shim0ga.

V.    Eylariiieiing Manager,
 "CL-1;C as?' India,
_  iiiiiiisional Office,
" M;.s.<:amp1ex, KSSIDC Buiiding,

VT  " "Sagar Road, Shims-ga.

. .Resp0n.&er1t:s.

(By Sri.§<amaieswara for Swamiakamal Assaciates. )



This Writ Petition is filed under Articlefi $326 and
227 cf the Constitution praying to quash t:hej"s11"s3.pC:f1sion
order bearing NCLNH dated 2.3-»3--20{)9 iss1;:§d"«1)y..__j"th;i: Qnd
resifiondent vicie AI1nexL1re--C.  "     

This petition comirlg Gm f0r"'p-1~sE:1i1':f§i11f.§;§fjz'V:v 'i:é:VVé31*ii1gV;- ti1is  

day the Courf: made the following;

 ...z:R,_ %
The petitioner is .§€€i{ifi'g  adf suspension
order bearing No.Nil  isbazed by the Sf3C(}I1d

respondent.

 Tfifi'  __the petitioner is that he was

grantefi  by £1;_§:s fiintrofier (if Insuraxace, Gcavemmcnt

 «_ Of I_1"15.i€; actéS«a::.:,...1r1surance agent in the year 1984 for 3

 pet*'i@dA   §rear$ and from time: to time it has been

re1§.ci%?&d _3;r';§:i_ the 1331: renewai was for a pariaci of three years

  ' from 5? ,§{ii»f2008 which is if} vogue] subsistence'

  it is contended that fiiffii' since fhe gram: ef liC€i'}.S€ in

" his favour, the péiitionér is acting as an Insurance agent

and he has been @'&I'1?Bd the membership ""Chaim1an Ciub"





of the company for having procureci good L.I.C.

It is contended that 03:1 accmmt of  :'S£°' f.%:1III»1§fi_.?

dispute, :1 faise case has been :féjiSt:eci Ehavvvpétitio c¥,=.;~ 

and as such the petitioner was   
1-.2009 to ms-2009 and    Jthafihzs
agency cannot be   30116 by the
respondents as per  23-32009 and

that too tvit1'1#3'i§i'f,";:j§~3,i:.r§I1€ afi3*"§1;:i, 1{n<si;€rn<«.z3:1?{i- ..ca}§.ed as Life Insurance

CorpoI:v.;atio.r{ Vlfifiiia  Regulation, 1972 defning the
method gfiigénts and terms and cenditions of

thaifg app0intn3s:ij1VtV'an(;I incidentai mattmrs. As per the said

  ;Rt:g£iiat_;:i<f$;f1  i~,_ e., Regulation No.16 the Corporaiion is

 €:n§1§Qwé1'é§i.__t(3g "i:érmi11ate the agency of an agent for certain

V . lapée s,=s2*-bA..i(':ii.V' is enumerated in 16(3) -ts 16(1). Ii is also

 '*"' §:I13;L3:efé;£e<i therein. that without giving reascnable

-  c5;,*§I50i9tur1it:§; to show-cause against such i('3I'I}1iI1&"€iO}.'1, 1:113

 " -iicexise cannet be teiminated. Tha Eearned counsel

&§)§€a¥'iI1g for the resyendent submits that the netitianer
géélw
;f

j'



'L11

may be directed to file objections to the prop€;e'e§i~-._show-
cause notice and they would consider 
appropriate orders as expeditiousfiyas pos'ei'bie}';v.  4'

7. The order iznpugned  iJ.f1 *..i:he  ";3ef;:ifi0IV1"gis

admittedly passed without  noiiee  hearing to the
petitioner and based   the Branch

Manager of the :'esponéer1i:._  je.erie1_zs allegation of

criminai case! fifiieieri   "petitioner which is the

subject "   'eensidefaeien by the Jurisdictional

Magistfage ~   

_;8'; §j{avi:11jg ..1_eee:rdv:the counsel for the petitioner and the

  perusing the records, it Wouki be

Ae;':p3?§;15:*;ie:en.teT':;eéifegua1'd the imerest of the petitioner as aieo

 _ the ""i:z1tei'}es;:'  of izhe Corporation by passing the foflowing

 ' 4  .QI*d:.31j':

ORDER

ii) The respondent Corporation 33 hereby directed to
treat the suspension netice elated 23-3-12009 as

;”\_,
5

aw?

showwcause rzctice and seek the Gbjectiofis of the

Detitionsr to the same.

The petitioner shall fiie objecticsffis

shewwcause notice abgva r<.=.,f£ém:§ti'v , évitlzin ::§2.i;i0Ii’ 4]

shali ccnsiéer .the V4<':.}:A§€-(:t:':z::~I1$..".%A fiiaéii
petitioner and -~..3pprf)p$fiat5: j" fhfiffi ' 'on
after g'vir1g_ 0pp0:t.fii1;i1:y '' –.$;g tiié' –peti}f§oner within
"Ewe w%kS= fi'o:1i_L " :21" receipt of the

objections. vv

i:§"éiI$<) parrnitted to issue. any

'– i'1'~»:'2ss'I?1i:{2§;'i.<<;fV:""7't;s:;§_ V'%1'1ge'pctiti0ner by fixing reasonable

" LI':iI11e f0r":hé~:: 'igéaéiiiéioner to reply axid in the event of

éush' fresh riotica being issued, the respondent

.Q0rp«§ra'€ia:;:1 shall geek objections from the

'petitioner, consider the same and pass erders in

'_*'.v.;a;;«::-.::'€}i.'ds§11ce with law, with-.111 3 periad of three:

' weeks as Oiiifif limit from tsday.

% em

Petitiailer -31191} cooperate with the resporzdsnt in
{zazmluding the procesdings as expeéitisausly as
possible but rm: later than three weeks from

W'

taday.

(V) It is also made ciear that the

the above said three weeks ‘shafliinot _

or procure business ‘– ” ‘

The above writ petition -i..$ dispgsed of v

Iudge