P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. This batch of writ petitions pertains to a common cause, being aggrieved of Ext. P2 notification (Exhibits referred to as given in W.P. (C) 13288 of 2011) issued by the first respondent/Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA in short), declaring the rates of insurance premium in respect of the motor third party insurance, to be made applicable w.e.f 25.04.2011. Challenge is mainly with regard to the power and jurisdiction of the first respondent, denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also in respect of the extent of enhancement.

2. The petitioners are various associations, representing the Stage carriage operators, Contract carriage operators, Tourist bus operators, Car and taxi operators, Lorry and other goods carriage operators in the State. The common contention is that, as per Ext. P2 issued by the first respondent/IRDA, the rates on motor third party premium have been enhanced to an exorbitant extent, in a quite arbitrary manner, that too, without any involvement of the 2nd respondent/Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC in short).

3. W.P (C) No. 13288 of 2011 stands admitted on 10.05.2011 by the vacation Court, also granting interim stay as prayed for. The service is complete in the said case. The other writ petitions came up for consideration before this Court, on re-opening the Court, after the mid-summer vacation, when one of such cases was heard in detail, particularly as to the maintainability, which led to posting of all these cases together for detailed hearing and consideration.

4. The arguments on behalf of the petitioners were led by Mr. Ramesh Chander, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P (C) 13288 of 2011, supported by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the other cases as well. Respondents 1 and 2 were represented by the learned counsel Mr. N. Krishna Prasad; while the other respondents (Insurance Companies in the public sector) were represented by the learned counsel Mr. P.K. Manoj Kumar.

5. Mr. Ramesh Chander, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners would like to empha size the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the first respondent (IRDA) to have issued Ext. P2 notification, which power, according to the petitioners, stands vested with the second respondent (TAC). Reference is made to the scope and power of the concerned respondents, as provided under Section 64UC of the Insurance Act 1938 and the one available under Section 14 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999. With regard to the loss of opportunity of hearing, it is stated that, none of the petitioners Associations in Kerala was given any opportunity of hearing before Ext. P2 notification was issued and as such, they did not get any chance to bring the actual facts and figures to the notice of the first respondent (IRDA).

6. All the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that, the power to fix the tariff rates stands exclusively vested upon the second respondent/Tariff Advisory Committee as provided under Section 64UC' of the Insurance Act. Sub Section 3 of Section 64UC stipulates that, every decision of the Tariff Advisory Committee, shall be valid only after and to the extent it is ratified by the Authority (IRDA) and every such decision shall take effect from the date on which it is so ratified by the Authority or if the Authority so orders in any case, from such earlier date, as specified in the order. By virtue of the said provision, it is pointed out that, the primary authority, who is vested with the power to fix the rates of insurance premium is the 'Tariff Advisory Committee' and the power vested with the 'IRDA' is stated as only the power of 'ratification'. Admittedly since Ext.P2 notification has been issued by the first respondent/IRDA, without any involvement of the 'TAC', the same is sought to be interfered, simultaneously, pressing the other grounds as well.

7. The learned standing counsel appearing