N A CHOWDHURY Vs. CONTROLLER OF INSURANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 5th February, 1998 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 2677 of 1995 discharging the rule.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that following an advertisement by the Government in the newspapers inviting applications from interested persons to do business of general and life insurance in the private sector the appellant submitted application seeking registration of an Insurance Company under the name and style of Agrani Insurance Company Limited (Proposed) to do business of general insurance. Pursuant to the direction of the Cabinet Committee, a Committee constituted by the Ministry of Commerce recommended the applications of 23 applicants including that of the appellant. In July 1994 the Ministry of Commerce invited fresh application to do business of general insurance increasing the approved capital from Tk. 6 crores to Tk.15 crores. 39 applicants including the appellant applied to do business of general insurance. The Controller of Insurance after scrutiny forwarded all the 39 applications for general insurance business and 8 applications for life insurance business to the Ministry of Commerce. The Ministry of Commerce prepared after scrutiny a list of 23 Companies, including the proposed company of the appellant, for consideration of the Cabinet Committee in its meeting held on 26.4.95 recommended for registration of 11 applications for general insurance business and 2 applications for life insurance business. The appellant's company was included in the recommendation of the Cabinet Committee for registration to do business of general insurance. Ultimately the Government accorded permission for registration of 8 Insurance Companies for carrying on general insurance business and 2 insurance companies for carrying on life insurance business. The appellant's company was not accorded permission for registration to carry on the business of general insurance.

(3.) The appellant then filed the writ petition and a Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned action of failing to issue a permission letter in respect of the registration of the Agrani Insurance Company Limited (Proposed) should not be declared to have been taken without lawful authority and/or to be unconstitutional as being violative of the appellant's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21, 31 and 40 of the Constitution and as to why the respondents should not be directed to grant the appellant permission to register Agrani Insurance Company Limited (Proposed) as an Insurance Company in accordance with the recommendation dated 26.04.1995 of the Ministry of Commerce.