The main legal point established is that the Corporation has the authority to terminate the agency of its agents under Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations, and the notice given satisfies the principles of natural justice.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS are agents of the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('corporation' for short ). They are calling in question the notices issued by the respondent Corporation invoking their powers under Regulation 17 (1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, ('regulations' for short), 1972.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts are : first petitioner is working as agent in the respondent Corporation right from the year 1983. He got married to one Smt. B. S. Girija on 16-4-1992, who is a regular employee of the respondent Corporation. Prior to the marriage, first petitioner requested the respondent Corporation to give him permission to marry an employee of the Corporation, and had further requested to permit him to continue to be the agent of the respondent Corporation. The request made by the petitioner had not been replied by the respondent Corporation one way or the other.

( 3 ) SECOND petitioner is also working as an agent of the respondent Corporation right from the year 1986. He got married to one Smt. Sophia on 18-11-1993. After the marriage with Smt. Sophia, by his letter dated 25-9-1995, he had informed the respondent Corporation about the marriage and also had requested the respondent Corporation to continue his agency.

( 4 ) IT appears, by a letter dated 29-9-1995, the respondent Corporation had accepted the explanation offered by the second petitioner by his letter dated 25-9-1995 and had condoned the act of non-disclosure of the marriage and further continued his agency.

( 5 ) BY an order dated 25-9-1997 and 27-9-1997 respectively, the respondent Corporation invoking their powers under sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 16 of the Agency Regulations, had directed the petitioners not to canvass or procure life insurance business with immediate effect. Those notices were the subject-matters of writ petitions before this Court in W. P. No. 34352/1997 c/w W. P. 29166/1997. This Court by its order dated 9-1-1998 was pleased to dispose off the writ petitions on a concession made by the learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation. While disposing off the writ petitions, the Court was pleased to observe as under :"3. Mr. Brahmarayappa, however, sought liberty to proceed against the petitioners for termination of their agencies in exercise of the powers vested in the competent authority under Regulation 16 (1) of the aforementioned Regulations. This was opposed by Mr. Visveswara, Counsel appearing for the petitioners, according to whom the facts and the circumstances of the cases did not permit the competent authority exercising the power of termination on the same set of facts based on which the petitioners had been earlier notified and warned to be careful in future. He urged that the earlier proceedings leading to the issue of a warning to the petitioner for the same default as is now alleged against him should constitute a final determination of the controversy preventing a fresh look on the same at a subsequent stage. I am not however inclined to examine whether the previous proceedings initiated against the petitioner in W. P. No. 34352/1997 would constitute a valid bar against the respondent initiating fresh proceedings against the said petitioner. Interest of justice would, in my opinion, be sufficiently served if I direct that the petitioner in the said writ petition would be entitled to raise all such defences as may be otherwise open to him against any action that the competent authority may propose to them by way of termination of his licence in exercise of its power under Regulation 16 (1 ).

( 6 ) SIMILARLY, the petitioner in the other writ petition shall also be entitled to raise all such defences as may be open to him against any action that the competent authority may propose in terms of the said Regulation. Subject to what has been stated above and reserving liberty for the parties as indicated, these petitions are disposed off leaving the parties to bear their own costs. "

( 7 ) AFT