Bombay High CourtWP/2967/2016dismissedrule discharged

Miracle Samarth, Thr. Shri Jageshwar S/O Shriram Samarth v. Insurance Regulatory And Development Thr. Manager Lic And Others

2016-06-17Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

1706wp2967.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2967/2016 Miracle Samarath, Bhandara, Distt. Bhandara, through its Partner ...Versus...

Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority through its Manager, Nagpur Tah. and Distt. Nagpur and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.A. Gupte, Advocate for petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 17.06.2016 By this petition, the petitioner has sought a direction against the respondent no.1 to take action in the matter of cancellation of corporate insurance agency of the petitioner on the basis of the corporate licence no.4630469. Since the licence of the petitioner was cancelled on the complaints of the employees by the communication/order dated 22.12.2011, the petitioner had approached this Court, challenging the said order. By an order dated 6.7.2015, this Court had set aside the order of cancellation of the agency. It was, however, observed that the respondents were free to take appropriate action against the petitioner, in accordance with law. The petitioner has now again approached this Court for a

1706wp2967.16.odt direction that the respondent - authority should take action within a time-frame.

It would not be for this Court to grant the relief prayed by the petitioner. The agency of the petitioner was cancelled and the order is quashed and set aside. It would not be for this Court to explain to the petitioner as to what would be the consequence of setting aside the order of cancellation of the agency. Directions to the respondents to decide the matter within a time-frame need not be issued.

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar