The main legal point established is that decisions of dis-empanelment must adhere to principles of natural justice and proportionality, and the period of dis-empanelment cannot be indefinite.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 14th October, 2015 of the respondent No. 1 New India Assurance Company (NIAC) de-paneling the petitioner, a Insurance Surveyor, as well as the report dated 25th August, 2015 of the Committee of the respondent No. 1 NIAC on the basis of which the impugned order dated 14th October, 2015 was issued. Axiomatically, a direction is also sought against the respondent No. 1 NIAC restraining it from stopping giving work to the petitioner.

2. The petition came up first on 6th November, 2015 when the Rules and Regulations relating to empanelment and / or the terms and conditions of the contract of empanelment and the procedure if any prescribed regarding dis-empanelment was enquired from the senior counsel for the petitioner and on his request, the matter was adjourned to today. Since the counsel for the respondent No. 1 NIAC appearing on advance notice on that date was also unable to throw light on the said aspects, the presence of the concerned officials of the respondent No. 1 NIAC before the Court today was also directed. In compliance therewith, Ms. Nili Niranjan and Mr. Chirag Indulia, Administrative Officers of the respondent No. 1 NIAC are present in the Court.

3. The position which emerges after hearing the parties is that while the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) constituted under Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) Act, 1999 grants a licence for practicing as an Insurance Surveyor, the individual insurance companies empanel the surveyors holding such a licence and who are members of the Indian Institute of Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors (IIISLA) promoted by IRDA under Section 14 of the IRDA Act, 1999. The officials of the respondent No. 1 NIAC present in Court also state that it is not as if every member of the IIISLA holding a licence from the IRDA is entitled to empanelment with the respondent No. 1 NIAC; it is in the discretion of the respondent No. 1 NIAC whether to empanel a particular licence holder from IRDA for the work of surveying the claims preferred against the respondent No. 1 NIAC. The said position is not controverted by the senior counsel for the petitioner.

4. The senior counsel for the petitioner at the outset contends that no notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be de-panelled or why his name should not be removed from the panel of surveyors of the respondent No. 1 NIAC.

5. In this regard, it may be mentioned that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 2921/2015 challenging the communication dated 9th March, 2015 of dis-empanelment of the petitioner and the said writ petition was disposed of by vide order dated 26th May, 2015 setting aside the said communication dated 9th March, 2015 and by directing as under:

“5. Having regard to the above, the impugned communication is set aside. Since, the representation of the petitioner is pending before the aforementioned committee, the said committee will consider the same and pass a reasoned order. A copy of the reasoned order will be supplied to the petitioner. The Committee would also seek the presence of the petitioner, and accord, an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

6. Consequently, the captioned petition and the pending application are disposed of in terms of the aforementioned directions.”

6. It has as such been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner that without the petitioner then pressing for issuance of a show cause notice, how the same can be pressed now.

7. The senior counsel for the petitioner replied that the grievance is that the petitioner was not informed as to for how much time the petitioner was proposed to be dis-empanelled and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to represent on the said aspect.

8. The senior counsel for the petitioner interrupts the dictation to now also state that the communication dated 9th March, 2015 which was challenged in the earlier writ petition was only concerning dis-empanelm