The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) regulates the payment of commission to agents by insurance companies, and the terms of agency between the members of the petitioner association and the Insurance companies cannot be enforced in writ jurisdiction.

1. The Petitioner in these writ petitions, The General Insurance Agents Welfare Association has challenged the order passed by the third respondent in both the writ petitions i.e., The New India Assurance Company Limited and National Insurance Company Ltd., dismissing the representation made by the petitioner for grant of commission, for business procured for commercial vehicles, between the period 01.08.2005 and 01.01.2007. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited and for the period 07.06.2006 to 01.01.2007 in the case of New India Assurance Company.

2. The members of the petitioner association were appointed as agents in pursuance to the application made to the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) which is a statutory body. It conducts pre-recruitment test and thereafter give practical training to the agents, with an object to procure business for the Insurance Companies. The members of the petitioner association after having qualified in the test and undergone training were appointed as agents by the Insurance Companies.

3. The case of the petitioner is that IRDA also regulates the payment of commission to the agent by the Insurance Companies. In exercise of statutory power, the IRDA fixed the maximum limit for payment of commission for statutory Insurances to the maximum of 10%. The members of the petitioner association were accordingly being paid the commission at the rate of 10% for the business procured by them.

4. The National Insurance Company Ltd., as well as the New India Assurance Company Ltd., in view of the heavy losses suffered by them decided not to pay any commission for procuring business of commercial vehicle of all ages (Passengers and goods carrying vehicles except Tractors), The tractors used for agricultural purposes were coming under the package, thereafter insurance for tractors was allowed the commission at 10%.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the decision of the Insurance Companies, challenged the order by filing W.P.No.28120 of 2005.

6. In view the fact that during the pendency of the writ petition, keeping in view the later developments and improvements in the financial position, the commission on commercial vehicles was revised, and is being paid to memers of the petitioner.

7. This Court in view of the later development held that the relief claimed had been rendered infructuous. However, for the period referred to above, the petitioners were given liberty to file representation to claim commission with liberty to Insurance Companies to take decisions thereon.

8. The representation of the petitioner stands rejected by way of impugned orders.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, by contending that the order is on the face of it arbitrary and amounts to colourable exercise of power, thus is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The members of the petitioner association are being denied, the payment of commission, in spite of having been asked to work to get business, which was not gratis.

10. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-Insurance Companies has misread the regulations of the IRDA to hold that it can even refuse to pay commission because it only fixes the maximum, and not the minimum.

11. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the order is otherwise against equity and good conscience therefore not sustainable in law.

12. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. Prima facie the writ petition itself is not competent, as the members of the petitioner association have no local standi to challenge the assignment between the Insurance Companies and that of the members of petitioner association. The relations of members of petitioner and Insurance company is that of principal and agent, the respective rights are governed terms of agency, which can not be enforced in writ jurisdiction.

13. The members of petitioner ar