SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(Bom) 107

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Patel D.V.and Wagle V.G, JJ.
Appellants: Pramodrai Shamaldas Bhavsar
Vs.
Respondent: Life Insurance Corporation of India
Spl. Civil Appln. No. 353 of 1967Decided On: 25.09.1968
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R.S. Kulkarni, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: R.M. Mathalone and D.G. Rege, Advs.

The Life Insurance Corporation is not an authority within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, a writ petition cannot be maintained against it.

Headnote:

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION NOT AN AUTHORITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ART. 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION - NO WRIT LIES AGAINST IT - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AVAILABLE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation, challenged his dismissal order passed by the Zonal Manager. The petitioner argued that the Life Insurance Corporation is an "authority" within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution and a writ could issue in appropriate cases.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Life Insurance Corporation is not an authority within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution as it is a trading body and does not possess any power which can affect the activities of other citizens.

Issues: 1. Whether a writ petition could lie against the Life Insurance Corporation, a trading body? 2. Whether the Zonal Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation is a Tribunal?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Life Insurance Corporation is a trading body and does not possess any power which can affect the activities of other citizens. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an "authority" within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. 2. The Zonal Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation is not a Tribunal as he is a servant of the Corporation and does not hold any official position in the hierarchy of public officers of the Government.

Final Decision: The court discharged the rule and held that no writ lies against the Life Insurance Corporation. The petitioner has an alternative remedy available to him by way of a suit.

JUDGMENT - Patel, J.

1. By this application the petitioner challenges an order of dismissal passed against him by the Zonal Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India on December 11, 1965. The short facts leading to the present application need be stated.

2. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent the Life Insurance Corporation, which is a statutory corporate body created under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. On April 27, 1965 a charge-sheet was served upon him in respect of six items. Item no 1 was in connection with indiscipline and insubordination under Regulations 21 and 39 (1) of the Staff Regulations Charge No. 2 related to his calling a meeting of the Branch Office staff in the office premises after 5.30 p.m. without obtaining prior permission of the Branch Manager, Charge No. 3 related to his not accepting a letter dated November 9, 1964 addressed to him by the Branch Manager in relation to the meeting which was the subject-matter of Charge No. 2 Charge No. 4 related to his being in debts and his being unable to liquidate the debts within a reasonable time. The fifth charge was that he did not forward a copy of the Branch Office collection to the Divisional Office even though the balance of a premium on a particular policy was paid in the Branch Office on October 13, 1964. Charge No. 6 related to transfer of proposal of insurance to the name of one J. T. Patel though booked to a different person. An enquiry was held by the Branch Manager on these charges. He forwarded the same along with his report to the Zonal Manager who is the dismissing authority of the petitioner. Thereafter the Zonal Manager issued a show cause notice to the petitioner communicating his tentative findings to show cause why penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him under Regulation 39 (1) (g) of the Staff made a reply on November 29, 1965 stating that he had not given him the grounds for his findings and the show cause notice, therefore, was illusive, that he had already submitted a detailed statement to the Enquiry Officer and if the contentions and arguments were not acceptable to him, he should have been informed of the reasons thereof. In the absence of these details he would be unable to reply to the letter and state anything more than what was already stated by him in the written statement which he had filed. He further alleged that the enquiry was not an impartial enquiry and that he had not been given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Thereafter the Zonal Manager on December 11, 1965 finally passed his order dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner seeks to challenge this order.

3. The first question that arises in the present case is whether a writ petition could lie against the Life Insurance Corporation, a trading body. The Life Insurance Corporation is constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act. 1956. This Act was passed for nationalization of Insurance business by transferring the same to a Corporation established for that purpose and to provide for regulation and control of the business of the Corporation and for connected matters. The Corporation has to consist of fifteen persons or less and one of them is to be the Chairman. Initially a sum of fice crores of rupees is provided by the Central Government to form the capital of the business and power is given under Section 5 (2) to reduce the said capital on the recommendation of the Corporation. The Corporation under Section 6 has to carry on business if Life Insurance in and outside India and is to exercise its power under the Act to develop the business to the best advantage of the community. The Corporation is constituted with perpetual succession and a seal and is an autonomous body for the purpose of business which it has to carry on according to the rules. On a perusal of the provisions of the Act it is clear that its activity is only business activity and it possesses no power which in any manner can



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top