S NAGARAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) constitutional validity of Section 93(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 113(5) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules is what is called in question in this writ petition. The challenge falls for consideration in the following circumstances.

(2.) in terms of the Provisions of Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an agent or a canvasser, dealing in the sale of tickets for travel by a public service vehicle or otherwise engaged soliciting customers for such vehicles, as also an agent engaged in the business of collecting, forwarding or distributing goods carried by goods carriage is required to obtain a licence from the competent authority who may grant the same subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the state government. One of the conditions that can be prescribed for the grant of any such licence is the deposit of a security amount not exceeding Rs. 50,000/- in the case of an agent in the business of collecting, forwarding or distributing goods carried by goods carriage, and a sum not exceeding rupees five thousand in the case of any other agent or canvasser. As per Rule 113(5) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, the security deposit required from a person seeking a licence as an agent for the sale of tickets for travel by public service vehicles has been fixed at Rs. 2,500/-. The petitioner who is a licenced agent in the sale of tickets by travel in the public service is aggrieved of the Provisions of Section 93(2)(c) and Rule 113(5) of the rules aforementioned prescribing the security deposit of Rs. 2,500/-, as one of the conditions for the issue of any such licence. He has accordingly questioned the constitutional validity of the aforementioned two Provisions inter alia on the ground that the demand of security deposit is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the Provisions of article 19(l)(g) of the constitution.

(3.) heard.