AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.M. Sahai and R.N. Misra, JJ.—By way of this writ petition, the petitioner wants to get reliefs regarding contractual matter.
We have heard Shri M.B. Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel for the respondents.
In the writ petition it has been alleged that the petitioner was appointed as LIC Agent and his agency was terminated and the appeal was also dismissed. He has sought the reliefs for quashing the orders dated 22.12.2004 passed by the respondent No. 2, dated 2.4.2004 passed by respondent No. 3 dismissing the appeal, dated 23.4.2001 passed by the respondent No. 4 terminating his agency and forfeiting the whole commission and dated 5.12.2000 passed by the respondent No. 4 cancelling his appointment. He has further prayed for restoration of his agency and refund of the amount of the forfeited commission.
The learned Counsel for the respondents has raised the question of jurisdiction. According to him, this is a contractual matter and cannot be agitated in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of National Highway Authority of India Vs. Ganga Enterprises and Another, , the following observation has been made by the Apex Court:
It is settled law that disputes relating to contract cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the said case the writ petition was entertained, which was based on the contract. The Apex Court observed that the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
In civil misc. writ petition No. 4911 of 1999 Smt. Pratibha Kumari Rastogi v. Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. (unreported), the Division Bench of this Court has clearly observed on 8.2.1999 that in such case''s, the aggrieved petitioner may file a suit. The order is quoted below:
The petitioner claims that she is an Agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India. Of contracts between the Principal and the agent the petitioner claims that commission of the agency of selling life insurance policy is not being accounted for.
For this, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, she may file a suit.
Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
Further in civil misc. writ petition No. 58784 of 2005 Lalji Yadav v. Managing Director and two Ors. (unreported) the same observation was repeated on 2.9.2005 by another Bench Division Bench of this Court. Again on 16.1.2008 in civil misc. writ petition No. 66130 of 2005 Vikram Prasad Gupta v. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, LIC of India (unreported), the Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court has repeated the same view.
Thus, the repeated judgements of this Court as well as Hon''ble Apex Court are clear on the point that contractual liabilities cannot be agitated in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Uttar PradeshGram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh and Others Vs. Daya Ram Saroj and Others, , the following observations has been made:
Judicial discipline is self-discipline. It is an inbuilt mechanism in the system itself. Judicial discipline demands that when the decision of a coordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought to the notice of the Bench, it is to be respected and is binding, subject of course, to the right to take a different view or to doubt the correctness of the decision and the permissible course then open is to refer the question or the case to a larger Bench. This is the minimum discipline and decorum to be maintained by judicial fraternity.
In view of above, we are of the clear opinion that this writ petition is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.