JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J.: —Leave granted Delay condoned.

2. The appeal and cross appeal arise from the Division Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court dated January 31, 1994 in Spl. Civil Application No. 2614 of 1980. On August 25, 1980 one Prof. Manubhai Shah Executive trustee of Respondent No. 1 and Mr. D. N. Dalal sought policies under Table 58. Similarly in December,1978 Respondent Nos 2 to 4 sought similar policies for convertible term insurance plans for different amounts. In September, 1980 Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 agents of the appellants when presented proposals to the LIC under Table 58 on behalf of individual respondents and promised to cover under Table 58 other 9 crores uninsured households, the LIC turned them down. Consequently after issuance of a notice through counsel on September 14, 1980, the respondents filed the above writ petition. The conditions imposed and denial to accept policies sought under Table 58 were assailed arbitrary, discriminatory, violating Articles 14,19 (1) (g) and right to life in Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court while upholding that prescription of conditions, for 1st class lives as eligibility and other criteria laid down in the policy under Table 58 are neither unjust nor arbitrary, declared a part of the conditions, namely, "Further, proposals for assurance under the plan will be entertained only from persons in Government or Quasi Government organisation or a reputed commercial firm which can furnish details of leave taken during the preceding year under Table 58" as subversive of equality and, therefore, constitutionally invalid. Accordingly, it was struck down. The Corporation filed the appeal against the portion that was struck down and the respondents filed the cross appeal against the finding that went against them.

3. Sri Harish Salve,learned Senior counsel for LIC contended that on acceptance of the proposals by the insurer in Life Insurance business, the policy holders gets rights in the policy. As the proposals of respondents 2 to 5 were rejected as not being in conformity with the conditions prescribed in Table 58, they cannot enforce any right flowing from Table 58 under Article 226. They cannot use judicial process to create rights in their favour unless a binding contract emerged by acceptance of the proposal of insurance and acted upon. No rights would flow to any party to the proposal to challenge the policy, its terms and plan of insurance. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable to enforce contractual obligations. It is next contended that life Insurance policies are framed on actuarial considerations and worked out as per the needs of the policy to suit the interests of all those interested in obtaining a particular policy and their viability. The High Court was not justified in interfering with matters based on economic criteria and commercial contracts, in particular, after having recorded findings referred to hereinbefore in favour of the Corporation, the High Court committed error of law in declaring the offending portion of the policy as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution.

4. The actuarial principles are the calculations made by actuaries taking into consideration.

(a) present condition of health and physical build of the life to be insured;

(b) personal and family history, occupation, likelihood of any change in the occupation etc. the premium to be charged in a particular policy is calculated by actuarial method. These conditions have been imposed taking into consideration risk to be covered to see that the plan is successfully operated. The aforestated conditions are necessarily to forecast mortality among insured lives within a relatively narrow margin of error, depending upon general population statistics based on insured lives. The tables were framed to cover the risk of all classes of people to suit all the classes. There are several policies like endowment policy, annuity p