By the Court.—We have heard Shri Dhruv Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The office of Assistant Solicitor General of India, Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has accepted notice on behalf of Union of India. Mohd. Altaf Mansoor appears for Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority-respondent No. 2, Shri Sudeep Seth has accepted notice on behalf of State Bank of India-respondent No. 3. Shri Sachin Garg appears for SBI Life Insurance Company Limited-respondent No. 4.

2. Dr. Virendra Pal Kapoor-the petitioner is a senior citizen aged 72 years. He retired as a Scientist of National Botanic Research Institute and is settled at Lucknow. He invested Rs. 50,000/- in the year 2007 in SBI Life - “UNIT PLUS II - Single”, a Unit Linked Product offered by SBI Life Insurance Company Limited with an option of a limited term of five years (from 9.1.2007 to 9.1.2012), on the basic sum assured for life with risk cover at 625% of Rs. 3,12,500/-, with a choice of investment in growth fund (100%). The petitioner survived the term of the policy of five years. On its maturity he was paid only Rs. 248/- as a balance in the fund, on which the policy was terminated.

3. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for directions to declare Circular No. 032/IRDA/Act/Dec-2005 dated 21.12.2005 as ultra vires the Insurance Act, 1938 so far as it relates to the deduction of charges from the policy holders fund; to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the State Bank of India-respondent No. 3 not to allow use of Logo, Branch Name i.e. SBI, their Banking Branches, their employees etc. for the purpose of selling or soliciting the insurance business of the respondent No. 4-SBI Life Insurance Company Limited. He has also prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) to ensure that the commission is not paid to the insurance agents and intermediaries etc. from the investment component under ULIP policies and further a direction to State Bank of India not to give publicity to the fact that it does not underwrite the risk or act as an insurer as provided under Clause (g) of Regulation 9 of Licensing to Corporate Agents Regulations, 2002. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the IRDA to redress the grievance of the petitioner as contained in petitioner’s representation dated 8.2.2012.

4. It is submitted by Shri Dhruv Kumar, appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was misled by SBI Insurance Company Limited, of which the policies are sold by the employees of the State Bank of India, in the premises of State Bank of India to opt for the Unit Linked Product - SBI Life - “UNIT PLUS II - Single” which also offered an option of investment in the mutual fund to be managed by the so-called experts of the company and for which they charge the fund administrative charges and fund management charges from the subscribers.

5. In the counter-affidavit of Shri Rohit Kumar, A.G.M. (Personnel Banking-I),LHO, State Bank of India, Lucknow it is stated that the State Bank of India is a statutory corporation formed under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. It derives its name from Section 3 (1) of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Its logo/emblem is duly registered under the Copyright Act, 1957. The State Bank Life Insurance Company Limited (SBI Life) is a subsidiary of State Bank of India. It is a joint venture between State Bank of India and BNP Paribas, Cardiff, England. The State Bank of India owns 76% of the total capital and BNP Paribas, Cardiff has the remaining 24%. The SBI has the authority to carry out life insurance business in terms of the guidelines issued by IRDA, the licensing authority. The Government of India holds 62.3130% of the issued equity shares in State Bank of India. The holding of State Bank of India in SBI Life being 76%, the indirect holding of Central Government, in SBI life is less than 50%, as such, the opposite p