V.G.Selva Raja v. Insurance Regulatory And Development
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.03.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.No.8143 of 2025
1. V.G.Selva Raja
2. The Association of Practising Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors - APISLA, 6, RA Building, 1st Floor, 3, Choolaimedu High Road, Choolaimedu, Chennai - 600 094, Represented by its President Mr.V.G.Selva Raja, Appearing as Party-in-Person .. Petitioners
Versus
1. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India - IRDAI, Rep. by its Chairman, Survey No.115/1, Financial District, Nanakramguda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500 032.
2. V.Devanathan, Election Officer, Appointed by IRDAI to conduct the Election 1/7
of IIISLA, Indian Institute of Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors-IIISLA, 6-1-73, Flat No.104 & 106, First Floor, Saeed Plaza, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad - 500 004.
.. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioners, dated 22.02.2025 and 25.02.2025 with reference to the eligibility of the candidates and Final List of valid nominations announced on 21.02.2025 by the Election Officer appointed by IRDAI as per Clause 49 of the Articles of Association of the IIISLA and announce the revised Final List of Valid nominations and then to complete the Election process.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.G.Selva Raja, Party-in-person For Respondents : Mr.M.B.Gopalan, for R1 : No appearance for R2
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus directing the second 2/7
respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner, dated 22.02.2025 and 25.02.2025 with reference to eligibility of the candidates and final list of valid nomination announced on 21.02.2025 by the Election Officer appointed by the IRDAI as per Clause - 49 of the Articles of Association of IIISLA and announce the revised final list of valid nominations and then to complete the Election process.
2. Upon hearing the petitioner/party-in-person and also upon perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner seems to be that some of the candidates are disqualified. It is for the Election Officer to consider the disqualification in the manner known to law as per the Election notification. This Court will not interdict in the process. Even if there is any error in not rejecting the disqualified candidate, that will only be a cause of action in ultimately challenging the election. As far as the other grievance of the petitioner, that the voting rights are not granted as per the Articles of Association which are in existence on the said date, is concerned, even 3/7
though notice is issued to the second respondent/Election Officer and the private notice is said to be served, the second respondent is not appearing.
3. The learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that except for nominating the Election Officer, there is no role of the first respondent. It is for the Election Officer and thereafter, the concerned Company to take further call in the matter. Earlier, when the petitioner filed a Writ Petition, this Court decided that the amendments cannot be insisted prior to the election and the election will go as per the existing rules.
4. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of by clarifying that the election will be conducted strictly as per the existing norms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.03.2025 : no 4/7
grs 5/7
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs and W.M.P.No.8143 of 2025 6/7
12.03.2025 7/7