The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasoned and speaking orders in quasi-judicial proceedings, as emphasized by the provisions of Regulation 16 of the LIC Act 1956 and supported by legal precedents.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition was filed by Sri Sriniwas Shastri assailing the orders dated 23rd October 1996 (Annexure no. 1)and 24th July 1997 (Annexure no,2) to the writ petition, whereby he was terminated as l. I. C. agent under Rule 16 (1) (a) (b and d) read with Rule 10 (6) of the Life Insurance corporation of India (Agents Regulations 1972 ). During the pendency of this writ petition, the said petitioner died and his,legal heirs have been submitted to pursue this writ petition.

( 2 ) THE brief factual matrix of this case is that Sri Sriniwas Shastri was appointed as agent in Life Insurance Corporation (in short "lic") in the year 1964. A show cause was issued on 5th August 1996 (Annexure no. 6)requiring him to show cause why his agency be not terminated and the Commission payable may not forfeited since in respect to a policy no. 230045022 of one Guru Sevak Das gupta, he got it revised on 16th Jan. 2005 by accepting the deposit of premium on the said date, although the said Sri Gupta was hospitalized from 11th January 1995 to 16th january 1995 and died on 16th January 1995 at 11. 35 a. m. Thus, his aforesaid act caused loss to the corporation. He sent a reply dated 22-8-1996 (Annexure no. 7) to the Corporation denying the aforesaid allegations and stating that for 32 years, he has discharged his duties very faithfully and effectively, and therefore, no action be taken against him. However, the Senior Divisional manager L. I. C. , Kanpur, passed an order on 23rd December 1996 rejecting the contentions of the said agent and terminating his agency. An appeal was filed under regulation 20 of 1972 Regulations, but the same was also rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 24th July 1997. Hence this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE brief submission on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that against the show cause notice, a detailed reply was submitted to the Senior Divisional manager but he has passed wholly non-speaking and unreasoned order, without considering the various issues raised by the petitioner. Similarly, and in the same manner, the appellate authority has also passed its order on the appeal i. e. without giving any reasons at all. It is, therefore submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned orders being non speaking, unreasoned orders, although the proceedings for termination if the agency of LIC agent are quasi judicial in nature, and, therefore are illegal and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner on merits also sought to pursue this court to delve into facts in his attempts to show that there was no error or illegality on the part of the petitioner agent on account whereof he could have been terminated and the conclusion drawn by the respondents is perverse.

( 4 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the corporation submitted that the proceedings are not quasi Judicial as the relationship is purely contractual and, therefore neither the proceeding can be said to be quasi judicial nor the impugned orders are required to be reasoned or speaking.

( 5 ) HEARD Sri Manoj Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Padia learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. In my view this writ petition is liable to be allowed on the first issue that the impugned orders are wholly non speaking and unreasoned. Regulation 16 of 1972 Regulations read as under :16. Termination of agency for certain lapses: (1) The competent authority may, by order, determine the appointment of an agent. (a) If he has failed to discharge his functions, as set out in Regulation 8. To the satisfaction of the competent authority; (b) If he acts in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation or to the interests of its policy holders; (c) If the evidence comes to Its knowledge to show that he has been allowing or offering to allow rebate of the whole or any part of the commission payable to him; (d) if it Is found that any averment contain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document