V BHASKARRAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these two writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) the petitioners have secured agent's licences in terms of Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Karnataka motor vehicles rules framed thereunder. Applications for renewal of the said licences were made by them, in response whereto, the secretary of the regional transport authority, udupi, by an endorsement dated 15th of february, 1992 addressed to each one of the petitioners, directed them to provide an additional security deposit of Rs. 25,000 as required under rule 117(5) of the Karnataka motor vehicles rules, 1989. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioners went up in appeal before the Karnataka state appellate tribunal at bangalore. These appeals succeeded but only in part and were accordingly allowed by the tribunal's Order dated 29th of june, 1992. The tribunal was of the view that on a true and correct interpretation of rule 117(2) and (5), the respondents could demand a security deposit of a sum up to Rs. 10,000/- from the petitioners besides an additional security deposit of Rs. 1,000/- aggrieved, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petitions.

(3.) I have heard Sri ram bhat, learned counsel for that petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.