An insurance subsidiary of GIC unilaterally cancelled a long-term group personal accident policy for police personnel. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order quashing the cancellation, holding a State instrumentality must act fairly and reasonably even in contractual matters.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[33e3 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR l',1
PRESENT
ril THE HON'B LE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE { AND THE Hol.i BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI I RIT APPEAL NO.9O3 OF 2OO7 fi i ,l Writ Appeal under cla use 15 of the Letters Patent against theOrderdated 07-O9-20O7 in W.P.No.12057 of 2002on the file of the High Court.
Between:
AND
l' 'i
...APPELLANTS
M/s- Police Officers n$$ci"tion Adilabad Unit,Rep. by its President M.A.Kareem, Sio. M.A.Hameed, C/o. Superintendent of Police,S.P. Office, Adilabad,Rl/o. Nirmal, Adilabad District I
...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
l.A. NO: 1OF 2007(WAMP. NO:181 4 0F 20071
i1
petition under Seition 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition,the High court maybe pleased to suspend the order in wPNo. 12O5712OO2dt. 7-9-2OO7passed by this Hon'ble Court pending this Writ ApPeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRIRAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA(NOT PRESENT)
Counsel for the Respondents:M/s. A- B. LALITHAGAYATHRI
The Court made the following:JUDGMENT
,/1 /
EH N'BL E F H
AND
THE HON'B LE SHRI IUSTICE LKT II] I Writ Aooeal No.903 of2007
JUDGMENT, 1PffrbeHoz,bbthe Chicf lafirc Akk Aradhc)
Nonc lor the parties.
Perused thc rccord.
2.'lhis intra court appeal emanates from ordcr
datcd 07.09.2007, passed by a learned Single Judge, by which writ pcdr.ion prcferred by the respondent uiq, W.p.No.12057 of 2002 has becn allowed.
3.1. The rcsponde nr is a police Officers, Association in Adrlabad Disrict Qriefly.the Association, hereinafter). .fhe appcllant is an insurance company and is a subsidiary o[ Gencral Insurancc Oorporation of Ind.ia and functions under the control oI Insurance Regulatory and Development Authoriry.
1
3.2.'l'he General Insurance business was nationalized in the
year 1972 by the Genetal Insurance Busincss Nationalisation Act, 1972 and therefore, Gencral Insurance Corporation ol India is an instrumentality of the State. The appellant being its subsidiary is, therefore, amenable to writ jurisdict-ion of this
Court undcr Aricle 226 of the Constitution of India.
3.3. The parties entered into a contract for Long'ferm
Group Janata Pcrsonal Accident Insurance Policy @riefly 'the JPAInsurance Policy' hereinafter) for the employeesworking in policc department to cover the risk of death and disabrliry arising out of any accident or otherwise on payment of one time prcmium in lump sum. The Association obtained the willingncss o[ its mcmbers to take JPA Insurance Policy Accordingly, thc members o[ the Association made one timc lump sum payment o[ insurance premium payablc towards the JPAInsurancePolicy for the period from 05.02.1999 to 04.02.2009. However, by communication dated 12.04.2022, the appcllant unilaterally cancelled the JPA Insurance Pol-icy
3
with effect frcm 21 .04.2002. The aforesaid action of the appellant was assailed by thc respondent in a writ petition. Irarned Single Judge by an order dated 07.09.2007 inter alia held that the appellant, which is an instrumenality of the Statc, has to act ifl a, fat ar.d rational manner even ln contractual ficld and cannot be permitted to unilaterally rescind the JPA Insurance Policy. Accordingly, the order dared 12.04.2002 was quashed and thc appellants herein were gtanted liberty to issue a show cause notice to the Association and takc a decision in accordance with law after hearing them. In the aforesaid [acrual background, this appeal has been frled.
4
contract, therefore, has nghdy bcen ser aside by the learncd
Single Judge
6 In the result, Writ Appeal fails and the same is, hercby,
dismisscd. No cosrs
As a sc<1uel, mrscellaneous petitions, pending if aoy,
stand closcd
SD/. B. SAWAVATHI DEPUW REGISTRAR
I //TRUE COPY//
SECTI N OFFICER
To,
1 One CC toSRI RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA, Advocate[OPUC] 2 One CC toM/s. A.B. LALITHA GAYATHRI, Advocate [OPUC] 3 Two CD CoPies
MP GJP
v{--
rl
1
t
I ,l
t i
i I
i
!
I
HIGH COURT
t
il ,i I i
DATED:0310112024
1 HE SrA r4r
4,
oo 0I FEB 202{ 7
(,)
i ir
D1
f Fa.TC
JUDGMENT
WA.No.903 ot 2007
:l:
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
srJ \e-q 2!\
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a State instrumentality insurance company could unilaterally cancel a group personal accident insurance policy, and whether the Single Judge's quashing of that cancellation should be affirmed.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by the Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, M.G.Road, Warangal
M/s Police Officers Association Adilabad Unit, Rep. by its President M.A.Kareem
Alok Aradhe
Anil Kumar Jukanti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
