IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction) APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao W.P.A. No. 7362 of 2019 With CAN No. 2 of 2025 Sandhya Banerjee (Nee Mukherjee) & 0rs. Vs. The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Mr. Avijit Ghoshal ....For the petitioners. Mr. Avishek Guha Mr. Subhajit Das ….For the L.I.C.I. Hearing Concluded On : 05.08.2026 Judgment Delivered On : 14.08.2026 Judgment Uploaded On : 14.08.2026 2 Krishna Rao, J.: 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to revoke the decision of “Purification off” for the concerned insurance policies issued by the Respondent Corporation and directing them to restore insurance policies in their original position from the date of commencement. 2. Mr. Avijit Ghoshal, Learned Advocate, representing the petitioners submits that the petitioners are bona fide policyholders of life insurance policies issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as “LICI”) between 2009 and 2012, after receipt of premiums. He submits that in the year 2013, the Life Insurance Company detected an internal fraud at City Branch Office No. 19 and referred the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as “CBI”) and accordingly, the CBI has registered a case being No. RC0102013A0035 dated 31st December, 2013. On completion of investigation, the CBI has filed charge-sheet on 31st December, 2014 against one Sri Debabrata Ray, the then Assistant Branch Manager (Sales), LICI, CBO-19 under Section 409/ 420/467/468/471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Mr. Ghoshal submits that the charge sheet was filed against the employee of the LICI on the allegation of preparation and processing of fraudulent vouchers due to which the LICI sustained a loss of Rs. 3.48 3 crores. He submits that none of the petitioners are involved in the alleged crime and there is no materials on record attributes to any of the petitioners with regard to the fabrication of any vouchers/ documents with regard to their LICI polices and the premium receipts thereof. He submits that all of a sudden without any notice or without any opportunity of hearing, the Insurance Company unilaterally marked the policies of the petitioners under the status “Purification off” due to which no transaction was permitted and premiums were not accepted. 4. Mr. Ghoshal submits that the petitioners have time and again requested the Insurance Company for revocation of the “Purification off” but the Insurance Company has failed to revoke the same. He submits that the petitioners have also furnished documentary evidence by establishing that the petitioners have paid their premiums but the Insurance Company has not accepted the documents submitted by the petitioners. 5. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Amalesh Maity vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2004 SCC OnLine Cal 143 and submits that the respondents have not raised any objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition at the initial stage or at the time of moving the writ petition and as such at the stage of final hearing, the respondents cannot raised the point of maintainability. 4 6. Mr. Ghoshal further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Keshab Kundu vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in WPA No. 6696 of 2026 dated 5th May, 2026, wherein this Court dismissed the writ petition but the petitioners have given liberty that if the petitioners are having receipts of premium which was deposited at the time of purchase of the policies, the petitioners shall produce the same to the LICI authorities and the LICI authorities shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 7. Mr. Ghoshal further relied upon the judgment in the case of Bhumikaben N. Modi & Ors. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India reported in (2024) 6 SCC 385 and submits that once the Insurance Company accepted the premium and issued the policies, the Insurance Company cannot kept the LIC polices under “Purification off”. 8. Per contra, Mr. Avishek Guha, Learned Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company raised the point of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that each petitioner have their individual and separate cause of actions but have filed the present writ petition together. 9. Mr. Guha submits that the Insurance Company requested all the petitioners for providing information regarding mode of their payment either cash or cheque and whom the premium amount is paid. The Insurance Company requested the petitioners to produce original copy 5 of policy bond, original copy of first premium receipt, original copy of proposal deposit receipt, original cover page and relevant page of bank passbook and KYC documents for the purpose of address proof and PAN but have not submitted the required documents. 10. Mr. Guha submits that “Purification off” action of the disputed policies was taken up by the LICI on the basis of its internal investigation. He submits that in the year 2013, a fraud was detected in one branch of LICI from where 275 policies were issued in the name of different persons by preparing false cheques, by debiting funds of LICI Account Code 113811 favouring of LICI and those cheques were utilized for premium issuing policies in the name of different persons but actually no premium or any consideration amount for the Insurance Company were paid by the policy holders. He submits that Rs. 3.48 crores was approximately debited from the fund of LICI causing financial loss to the LICI and fraudulently policies were issued. 11. Mr. Guha submits that the petitioners claimed that they have deposited the money by cash through their different agents but as per LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972, Clause 8(4) “Nothing Contained in these regulations shall be deemed to confer any authority on an agent to collect any moneys or to accept any risk for or on behalf of the Corporation or to bind the Corporation in any manner whatsoever: Provided that an agent may be authorized by the Corporation to collect and remit renewal premium under the policies or proposal deposits from proponents on such conditions as may be specified”. 6 12. Mr. Guha relied upon the judgment in the case of Management of Singareni Collieries vs. The Industrial Tribunal & Ors. reported in (1975) ILLJ470AP and submits that there is no provision that a single writ petition can be filed by several petitioners if all the petitioners are having different cause of action. 13. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the materials on record and the judgments relied by the parties. The petitioners are claiming that they have paid premiums to the Life Insurance Company and have obtained life insurance policies but the respondent authorities have kept the said policies under “Purification off” on the pretext that one of the employees of the Insurance Company has committed fraud and misappropriated the amount of the Insurance Company. The particulars of the policies of the petitioners have been deducted by the Competent Authority as amongst many related to the misappropriation of fund in C.B.O-19. The petitioners have time and again requested to revoke the “Purification off” as the petitioners have not involved in any criminal case and obtained LIC policies after payment of premiums but the Insurance Corporation has not considered the request of the petitioners. 14. There are altogether 8 petitioners in the present writ petition and all the 8 petitioners were having their alleged different policies and alleged payment receipts of different dates but have jointly filed the present writ petition. At the time of moving the writ petition, the respondents have not raised the point of maintainability and subsequently several 7 orders have been passed. On 1st July, 2025, when this Court has taken up the matter for hearing, the Learned Counsel for the LICI has submitted that 6 petitioners have approached the respondent no. 3 and submitted relevant documents but other two petitioners neither appeared before the respondent no. 3 nor furnished their documents and the Learned Advocate submits before this Court that upon receipt of the relevant documents pertaining to the respective insurance policies from the remaining two petitioners, the grievance of all the petitioners will be addressed and prayed for some more time to process the case of the petitioners and accordingly, this Court has granted 12 weeks’ time. 15. In the case of Sri Amalesh Maity (supra), it is held that : “53. It may also be noted that the respondents herein did not raise any objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition at the initial stage of moving the said petition although this petition was moved on 22nd May, 2001 in presence of the learned counsel of the respondents and thereafter on various occasions this writ petition appeared before this Court and various orders were also passed time to time by this Court although the learned counsel of the respondents did not raise any objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition on the aforesaid ground of alternative remedy. 54. The objections regarding maintainability of this writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy should not be taken at a belated stage and particularly at the time of final hearing of this writ petition after a lapse of couple of years. 55. Accordingly, the objection raised on behalf of the respondent society regarding maintainability of the petition for non-exhausting the alternative 8 remedy cannot be sustained in law and the same is therefore, rejected.” 16. Considering the above, this Court finds that though the respondents have raised the point of maintainability in the affidavit-in-opposition but when the matter was taken up for hearing from time to time, no such point was raised, have admitted that they will process the request of the petitioners if the petitioners submit their documents. In view of the above, the point of maintainability raised by the respondents is rejected. 17. The CBI has initiated a case with regard to misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 3.48 crores from the account of the LICI and one of the employees of the Insurance Company was arrayed as accused in the said case. The Insurance Company had initiated a money suit before this Court being CS No. 203 of 2016 (LICI vs. Debabrata Ray) and the Coordinate Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 13th February, 2026, direct passed a decree declaring that the Insurance Company is entitled to get a decree for a sum of Rs. 3,63,90,494.60 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till recovery of the decreetal amount. 18. The Insurance Company by a communication dated 15th May, 2014, directed the petitioners for submission of original policy bond, original copy of first premium receipts, original proposal deposit receipts, original cover page and relevant page of bank passbook if the petitioners have made payment by cheque and KYC documents but the 9 petitioners failed to submit their documents to the Insurance Company to prove that the petitioners have paid the premium for obtaining LIC policies either in cash or through bank transaction. 19. The Insurance Company disputes with regard to the genuinity of the insurance policies as the petitioners have to submit the original payment receipts to the establish that the petitioners have actually paid premiums of their respective policies and Insurance Corporation but received premiums and issued insurance policies. 20. In the of Bhumikaben N. Modi (supra), the amount was paid through cheque and the respondents admitted the said amount but in the present case, the respondents are denying receipts of any amount and requested the petitioners to submit their documents to establish that the petitioners have paid premiums either in cash or by cheques. 21. In the case of Keshab Kundu (supra), this Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of limitation and disputed questions of fact but directed the Insurance Corporation if the petitioners be able to show the payment of premium, the Insurance Corporation shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 22. It is the case of the Insurance Company that if the petitioners provide documents to prove that the petitioners have paid their respective premiums, the Insurance Company will decide the claim of the petitioners. 10 23. In view of the above, the petitioners are directed to provide original insurance policies, original premium receipts whether the premiums paid in cash or by cheque, and all other required documents within a period of two weeks from date and if the petitioners submitted their documents, the LICI shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of their documents after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 24. WPA No. 7362 of 2019 is disposed of. Accordingly, CAN No. 2 of 2025 is also disposed of. Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the Judgment placed on the official website of the Court. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)