1. The petitioner has approached with a grievance that though the licence as agent of Insurance Company has been cancelled allegedly after receiving complaint/representation from petitioner's brother before cancelling the licence any intimation of any nature whatsoever was not issued and any hearing was also not granted. He has also claimed that any order conveying the decision and recording reasons is also not received by the petitioner. The only intimation which he has received is a communication dated 29.11.2011 from the Insurance Company but he has not received any intimation from respondent authority who has, allegedly passed the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision in case of Suresh Chandra Nanhorya v. Rajendra Rajak & Ors. [(2006) 7 SCC 800].
2. In response to the notice respondent authorities have filed reply affidavit stating the details and the circumstances on account of which the petitioner's licence is cancelled. One of the reasons stated by the respondent authority in support of its action is that the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria and that therefore when the said fact came to the notice of the authority, licence of the petitioner came to be cancelled.
3. From the affidavit it prima facie transpires that any notice of proposed action was not issued or any notice calling for explanation was also not issued and any hearing was also not granted, before taking the impugned action i.e. cancellation of licence.
4. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the said decision and action on ground of violation of principle of natural justice.
Rule.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top