By the Court.—Heard Sri S.P. Sharma and Sri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the U.P. Motor Transport Association which is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Petitioner’s case is that petitioner association represent/ventilate common grievances for protection of interest of members of the association. The motor vehicles used by the members of the petitioner association for transportation have been insured with the respondent Insurance Companies and they have been paying annual insurance premium towards damages claim and third party claim.

3. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed for quashing the notification dated 15.4.2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) exercising power vested in it under Section 14(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by which rates of premium applicable to motor third party liability insurance has been notified with effect from 25.4.2011. The notification dated 15.4.2011 has been issued in supersession of earlier notification dated 23.1.2007.

4. The petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that under Section 64UC of Insurance Act, 1938, the power to control and regulate rates in respect of any risk is vested only with respondent No. 2, i.e., the Tariff Advisory Committee. It is submitted that the jurisdiction being exclusively vested in the Tariff Advisory Committee, the notification issued by respondent No. 1-Authority is without jurisdiction. It is stated that Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority is only a ratifying authority and cannot assume or arrogate to itself the powers vested in the Tariff Advisory Committee so as to disseminate the Tariff Advisory Committee completely. It is further pleaded that on 12.3.2011 the authority appointed an actuary committee of Indian Motor third party insurance bill under the Insurance Act, 1938 to review the laws required for maintaining solvency ratio of the Insurance Companies and also the payment to be paid to the accident victims. It is stated that actuary committee was required to submit report by 30.6.2011 and without waiting for the same the authority has issued the impugned notification. The petitioner has also placed reliance on interim orders passed by Madras High Court, Karnataka High Court and Kerala High Court staying the notification dated 15.4.2011 which has been impugned in the present writ petition. The interim order passed by the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 10908 of 2011, Erode District Bus Owners Association v. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority dated 27.4.2010 relied by the petitioner, which has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. Another interim order relied by petitioner’s counsel is interim order dated 6.6.2011 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 19719 of 2011, The Federation of Karnataka State Lorry Owners and Agents Association v. The New India Insurance Company Limited and further interim order dated 10.5.2011 passed by the Kerala High Court in Writ Petition No. 12388 of 2011, Kerala State Private Bus Operators Federation and another v. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and others has been relied, which interim orders have been filed collectively as Annexure Nos. 6 and 7 to the writ petition.

5. Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, at the very outset, submitted that the interim orders passed by the Madras and Karnataka High Courts, which have been relied by the petitioner, have come to an end. He submits that Kerala High Court and Madras High Court have finally dismissed the aforesaid writ petition by judgments and order dated 22.6.2011 and 14.6.2011 upholding the impugned notification dated 15.4.2011, hence, th