AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Petitioner is an Association of travel agents. The Petitioner has
challenged the notice relating to payment of security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- towards renewal of licence of various numbers of Association, who
are being engaged as Canvassor / agents of contract carriages.
The Petitioner has contended that as per Rule 234 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter called as Rules), a person is to be granted
licence to act as agent or canvassor of stage carriage vehicle or motor car subject to certain conditions and subject to payment of security of Rs.
2,000/-. It has been submitted that since Rule 234 Sub-rule (5) which is extracted hereunder contemplates only deposit of Rs. 2,000/-, the
Respondent did not have any authority to direct deposit of Rs. 50,000/- as security deposit. Being relevant, Rule 234(5) is extracted hereunder:
234(5) No person shall be granted a licence under this rule to act as agent or canvassor of stage carriage vehicle or motor cab unless he has
completed 18 years of age and studied upto and inclusive of VII standard or of an equivalent examination and deposited a sum of rupees two
hundred as security for proper compliance of the conditions of the licence specified of the conditions of the licence specified in Sub-rule (9). No
person shall be granted a licence to act as agent or canvassor of contract carriage other than motor cab unless he has been a travel agent of repute
with experience in the field of booking tickets for travel by air, sea and rail for a period of not less than three years before the date of making
application so as to be able to co-ordinate navel by the different modes of transports and has deposited a sum of rupees two thousand as security
for proper compliance of the conditions of the licence specified in Sub-rule (9).
Learned Counsel appearing for the State even though not filed any counter has submitted that Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
contemplates deposit upto Rs. 50,000/- toward a security deposit and on the basis of the provisions contained in the Act, members of the
Petitioner''s-Association was called upon to make such deposit. Section 93(2) being relevant is quoted hereunder:
(2) The conditions referred to in Sub-section (1) may include all or any of the following matters, namely:
(a) the period for which a licence may be granted or renewed;
(b) the fee payable for the issue or renewal of the licence:
(c) the deposit of security -
(i) of a sum not exceeding rupees fifty thousand in the case of an agent in the business of collecting, forwarding or distributing goods carried by
goods carriages.
(ii) of a sum of not exceeding rupees five thousand in the case of any other agent or canvasser.
A mere perusal of Section 93(2)(I) makes it clear that it is an enabling provision under which necessary Rules can be framed by the State
Government and a ceiling of Rs. 50,000/- has been fixed. In other words, while framing rules, the State Government can prescribe for payment of
security deposit upto the amount not exceeding rupees fifty thousand in the case of an agent in the business of collecting, forwarding or distributing
goods carried by goods carriages and not exceeding Rs. 5,000/- in the case of any other agent or canvassor. However, the demand has to be
made as per the provisions contained in the Rules. Since the rules prescribe deposit of Rs. 2,000/- the Respondent has no authority to direct the
members of the Association to pay any amount in excess. Merely because in the provisions contained in Section 93(2) an upper ceiling limit has
been fixed as Rs. 50,000/- or Rs. 5,000/- the Executive Authority cannot demand fee more than what is prescribed under the Rules.
For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned notices are quashed. However, it is made clear that in case if the rules
have been changed subsequently, it would be open to the authorities concerned to demand payment of amount as prescribed under the Rules from
the date of such amendment in the rules. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 15096 of 1995 is closed. No costs.