@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Tirath S. Thakur, J.@mdashConstitutional validity of Section 93(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 113(5) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle 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 afore-mentioned 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 the Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
3. Heard.
4. Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner made a feeble attempt to support the challenge thrown to the impugned provisions and argued that looking to the nature of the business conducted by the petitioner, the demand of a security deposit for granting a licence in his favour appears to be unreasonable. He urged that the demand of security deposit from an agent does not really serve any purpose or provide any security against misconduct or default committed by the Agent. I see no merit in this submission. The Parliament has in its wisdom permitted the deposit of security as one of the possible conditions that can be prescribed for the grant of a licence to an agent or canvasser. That such a condition has been prescribed by the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988 is not disputed. In the face of clear legislative sanction behind the rule it is difficult to see how the same can be found fault with. The fact that the security deposit that can be demanded from an agent or canvasser has a Statutory limit prescribed by Section 93(c)(i) and (ii) ensures that neither the Rule making Authority nor the authorities competent to grant such licences are in a position to impose conditions that may make it difficult for the applicants to secure licences. In as much as Rule 113(5) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules has prescribed only Rs. 2,500/- as security deposit required for a person applying for an agent/canvassers licence for the sale of tickets, the Rule making authority cannot be said to have either transgressed the statutory limit or otherwise acted arbitrarily.
5. Equally untenable in the argument that the demand of security deposit does not serve any purpose or that the same is a futility. The purpose behind the imposition of a condition demanding security deposit appears to be to ensure that those holding licences as agent or canvassers do not act in a manner that may prejudice the interest of the travelling public or resort to means that are objectionable. Any such violations may expose the agent to actions by way of cancellation or suspension of their licences and if otherwise permissible in law to the forfeiture of his security deposit. It cannot therefore be said that the requirement of security deposit is wholly without any object or that the same is extraneous to the purpose of granting or regulating the issue of licences. If the power to regulate a trade or profession by legislation is conceded to the legislature, such a power would be wide enough to include the power to impose conditions such as payment of licence fees and making of security deposits for the issue of the licences.
6. Mr. Kumar however argued that there is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules for the refund of the security deposit should the Agent or the canvasser at any stage give up the job, surrender the licence and demand the refund of the amount deposited by him. According to him, the deposit once made is lost for ever nor is any interest on the said deposit envisaged by the Rules. This contended the Learned Counsel is unfair and confiscatory rendering the provisions of the Act and the Rule unconstitutional.
7. While it is true that the Act or the Rules do not make any provision for the refund of the security deposit, it is implicit in the expression "security deposit" that the amount deposited lies in the custody of the authorities concerned for the benefit of the depositor. Unless therefore the deposit is exposed to a possible forfeiture of the amount, the depositor should be at all times entitled to demand the refund of the amount deposited in case he surrenders the licence secured by him. In other words, a security deposit made cannot be said to have been lost or confiscated as apprehended by Mr. Kumar and shall be refundable to the persons making the same upon a demand provided the licensee has not committed any default exposing his deposit to any action by way of forfeiture and surrenders the licence secured by him.
8. As regards the non-payment of interest on the deposit made, there is indeed no provision either in the Act or the Rules providing for any such payment. Whether or not such a payment should earn interest for the benefit if the deposit or is a matter which is more appropriately within the purview of the rule making authority''s discretion. The Parliament and the Rule making authority having chosen not to provide for any interest on the deposit, it is difficult to strike down the provisions under challenge only on the ground that such a payment is not provided for.
9. In the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any orders as to costs.
