( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner in public interest. He claimed in the writ petition that he is an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. However, it was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the copy of the affidavit served on him shows that the petitioner has claimed to be a Policy holder of Life Insurance Corporation of India.

( 2 ) THE main contention of the writ petitioner is that the Life Insurance Corporation has been established not only to secure the Life Insurance business but to secure it to the best advantage of the community. It is stated that the respondent Corporation is bound to secure for insured persons the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the privileges promised under the Directive Principles. It is further stated that the Corporation is conducting the Life Insurance business with a view to secure maximum benefits for the Corporation and it is blind to the interest of the Policy holders. He submits that, at present if the insured commits default within the first three years in paying the premium the policy is liable to be forfeited and money deposited by way of premium is forfeited in favour of the Corporation. He further submits that by another clause in all the policies, whether Endowment or Life, the forfeiture is waived of by the Corporation and instead a paid up value representing the proportionate amount payable to the insured is paid at the end of the entire term without any bonus provided the default has not occurred within five years from the date when the policy was taken. He submits that a concept of surrender value has been incorporated by the Corporation by virtue of certain administrative orders which is not even equivalent to premium paid plus bonus. He submits that the position is worse if the default occurs between three years and five years of taking up a policy. However, if there is default after five years, a different procedure is followed depending upon the year in which the default occurred. Paid up value is reduced by a mechanism adopted by the Corporation. Even this amount is not being paid to the Policy holder when the policy gets forfeited, but is being paid at the time when the policy would have in ordinary circumstances matured. It lias further been stated that the Supreme Court observed in Reserve Bank of India- v. Peerless Company, 1987 (1) SCC 424 that policies which lapse or are forfeited bear roughly a proportion of 1/3rd of the number of new policies.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is particularly aggrieved of the loan policy of the Corporation, the loans which are advanced against the premium paid by the policy holders. The petitioner submits that before 30-6-1988 the policy regarding fixation of surrender value was better but it was changed after 1-7-1988. Surrender value factor has been reduced by the new policy to a far lower proportion and it has been stipulated that 90% of the surrender value can only be given by way of loan. The petitioner states by way of an example that in an endowment policy of 20 years on which premia had been paid for 10 years and the policy holder wants a loan mid way through, the surrender value factor is 46. 94 which is the percentage of the paid up value which will form the basis for grant of loan. However only 90% of such surrender value- shall in effect be given as loan and as a matter of fact it only comes to about 42% net of the premia paid. In other words the petitioner submits that the provisions of the new policy arc harsh and that if a policy holder wants loan against his policy, at best he wilt get 42% as loan of the premia paid. Therefore, he wants this Court to strike down the policy enunciated from 1-7-1988.

( 4 ) THE respondents have filed their counter and the petition is being resisted mainly on the following grounds : (1) That, the petitioner has no locus standi (2) That the issues involved relate, to policy of the Government of India and the Corporatio