Debangsu Basak, J.

The writ petitioner seeks recovery of a sum of Rs.1,63,32,947/-from the insurance company on account of commission. Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the writ petitioner is an agent of the Respondent No. 1. The writ petitioner as an agent of the Respondent No. 1 was allotted a number being licence No. 644409 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. The writ petitioner was assigned an agent code being 90000310 by the Respondent No. 1. The writ petitioner worked as an agent of the Respondent No. 1 and was successful in gathering business for the Respondent No. 1. The petitioner became entitled to a sum of Rs.1,63,32,947/-on account of commission for the period from 2005 to 2009. During the substance of the writ petition, the writ petitioner received a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- from the Respondent No. 1.

He submits that, the transactions for which the writ petitioner acted as the agent of the Respondent No. 1 are admitted. He points out the various paragraphs of the affidavit in opposition where the Respondent No. 1 admits the insurance transactions. He submits that, the denial of liability on account of commission by the Respondent No. 1 is without any basis. He points out that, the Respondent No. 1 relies upon and alleges oral agreement allegedly entered into between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 whereby petitioner allegedly waived his right to receive a commission in excess of Rs.1.63 crores allegedly for calendars and other gifts of significantly less value than the commission receivable. He contends that, the moment the Respondent No. 1 pleads waiver, at that moment, the Respondent No. 1 admits and acknowledges the liability of the Respondent No. 1 to the writ petitioner on account of commission. The alleged waiver pleaded by the Respondent No. 1 is without any basis as there was no such agreement. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submits that, the writ petitioner is not entitled to any commission in view of the Circular dated February 22, 2005. He submits that disputed questions of fact have arisen which ought not to be addressed by was of a writ petition. The oral agreement and the claim for waiver require further scrutiny than what can be done by way of a writ petition. The entitlement of the writ petitioner is disputed and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

He refers to Sections 40, 40A and 41 of the Insurance Act, 1938 and submits that, the writ petitioner is not entitled to commission at the rate of 15 per cent as claimed by him. He refers to a letter issued by the Kolkata Police and submits that, the writ petitioner was not engaged on commission basis.

On the invoices and the documents annexed to the writ petition, he submits that, a glitch in the software has caused such mistake.

The Respondent No. 1 is entitled to rectify such mistake. The claim of the writ petitioner cannot be founded on a glitch in the software of the Respondent No. 1. In reply Mr. Chowdhury for the petitioner submits that, Sections 40 and 40A of the Insurance Act, 1938 relates to life insurance policies. In the instance case, the nature of policies is different. The writ petition concerns commission payable in respect of group insurance. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.

The writ petitioner acted as the agent of the Respondent No. 1. This fact is not denied by the respondents. The writ petitioner obtained business for the Respondent No. 1. The fact that, the writ petitioner obtained business for the Respondent No. 1 is also not disputed. The writ petitioner claims that, he is entitled to commission at a certain rate from the Respondent No. 1 for the business that, the writ petitioner obtained for the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 claims that, no commission is payable to the Respondent No. 1. In any event, if any commission was p