The court emphasized that the contract between the parties was non-statutory and purely contractual in nature, and there was no public element involved. The court also clarified the applicability of promissory estoppel and upheld the insurance company's action based on the change in policy and the terms of the contract.

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Three writ petitions have been heard analogously. An interim application has also been taken up for consideration. W.P. No. 1144 of 1999 is the first in point of time. For the sake of convenience it is referred to as the first writ petition. W.P. No. 2146 of 2002 is the second writ petition in point of time and is referred to as the second writ petition. W.P. No. 2343 of 2002 being the third writ petition in point of time, is referred to as the third writ petition.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has addressed the Court on the basis of the third writ petition. The first and third writ petition are at the behest of a partnership firm and their partners are claiming that the partnership firm carries on business of mobilizing investable funds of the general public in various schemes of the financial institutions and debentures of large corporate houses. The second writ petition is at the behest of a person, who has claimed that there exists a contract for insurance between him and the insurance company. All the petitioners have claimed that, the insurance company is not entitled to cancel the existing contract of insurance.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in the third writ petition has submitted that, the insurance company wanted to enlarge the number of persons covered by Group Janata Personal Accident (J.P.A.) Insurance Policy. The insurance company had issued a letter dated October 8, 1997 in this regard. J.P.A. Policy was brought into being noting the competition in the market. J.P.A. Policy brought into being was for a long term of 15 years with the entire premium being paid up front. The writing dated October 8, 1997 does not contain any clause by which, the insurance company can cancel the contract for insurance at any point of time prior to the expiry of 15 years from the date of the contract for insurance. He has submitted that, the decision to issue a J.P.A. Policy for 15 years was a business decision and not a policy decision. He has referred to the certificate of insurance issued by the insurance company. He has submitted that, the certificate of insurance be treated as a sample of the numerous certificates of insurance issued by the insurance company in respect of the J.P.A. Policies. The certificate of insurance concludes the contract of insurance. The certificate of insurance issued by the insurance company does not specify that, the contract for insurance can be terminated prior to the expiry of 15 years from the date of the contract of insurance. J.P.A. Policy was for 15 years with the premium being paid up front. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the letter dated August 1, 2002 and submitted that, the insurance company has purported to cancel the J.P.A. Policy of more than 1 lakh/period of insurance for more than 5 years without any basis. The letter dated August 1, 2002 refers to Condition No. 5. Condition No. 5 of the policy which has been referred to in the writing dated August 1, 2002 does not exist in the certificate of insurance. Therefore, there is no foundational basis for the insurance company to cancel J.P.A. Policy on the ground that, the insurance company retains the right to cancel J.P.A. Policy in terms of the alleged Condition No. 5 of the policy. Such a condition, as referred to in the writing dated August 1, 2002 of the insurance company, being absent, the insurance company could not validly terminate the contract for insurance. The impugned writing dated August 1, 2002 therefore should be quashed.

4. Referring to J.P.A. Policy, he has submitted that, the policy is such that, public are involved. When public are involved, and more so when an Article 12 authority instrumentality is the insurance company, it is bound to act fairly and reasonably. The action of the insurance company in the present case is arbitrary. Assuming that, the insurance company has a power to cancel a contract for insurance, then also, the