( 1 ) BECAUSE a common question of law arises for consideration in these cases, they are disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in these cases are holders of permits issued under sub-sec (7) of S. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the 'act') to ply tourist vehicles throughout India. The permits are issued by making endorsements on the contract carriage permits which the petitioners already held in respect of the vehicles. The said endorsements purport tor have been made under Rule 123 (A) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle rules. One of the conditions imposed by the State Transport Authority which made the endorsements under sub-sec (7) of S. 63 of the Act is thai the petitioners should not enter into any fresh contract of hiring other than the extension or modification of a subsisting contract outside the state of Karnataka. Aggrieved by the imposition of the above condition the petitioners have filed these petitions. ( 3 ) IT is stated that Rule 123 (A) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicals rules, which, to some extent, deals with some of the matters covered by sub-secs (7) to (10) of S. 63 of the Act, is inapplicable to the tourist vehicles in respect of which permits are issued under sub-sec (7) of S. 63 of the Act. On this question the, Counsel for both the; parties are agreed in view of the faqt that Rule 123 (A) was promulgated long before sub-secs (7) to (10) of Sec. 63 were enacted. I shall, therefore, without deciding proceed an the basis that the said Rule is inapplicable to permits issued under sub-sec (7) of S. 63. The question which, therefore;, survives for consideration is whether the condition imposed by the STA while endorsing or issuing the permit under sub-sec (7) of S. 63 of the Act prohibiting the, petitioners from entering into any contract of hiring other than the, extension or modification of a subsisting contract outside the State off Karnataka, is valid or not. ( 4 ) SRI Keshava, Iyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that when once it is held that Rule 123 (A) is inapplicable there, would be no justification for imposing the impugned condition on the petitioners. ( 4 ) SRI Keshava, Iyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that when once it is held that Rule 123 (A) is inapplicable there, would be no justification for imposing the impugned condition on the petitioners. It is contended by him that the condition as it stands imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on the business by the petitioners and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. "but, the learned Govt Advocate contended that Sec. 51 of the Act, having been expressly made, applicable to permits issued under sub-sec (7) of Sec. 63 of for, Act, it was open. to the sta to impose in exercise: of its power under Cl (ii) oi sub-sec (2) of S. 51 of the Act the condition, the validity of which is challenged in these proceedings. He argued that in the absence of such a condition it wotuld be open to a person obtaining a permit from the STA in the State of Karnataka to keep his vehicle always outside the State of Karnataka. If the nolders of permits are allowed to do so, the very purpose for which the permits are, issued under sub-sec (7) of S. 63 of the Act would be defeated as the tourists who pass through the State of Karnataka would be deprived of the facility of a tourist vehicle. It is no doubt true that there is a good deal of substance in what is contended on behalf of the State Govt by the learned Govt Advocate. But the condition which is impugned in this writ petition has to be declared as void because it does not allow the holders of permits issued under sub-sec (7) of 9. 63 of the Act to enter into a fresh contact of hiring even for the purpose of bringing the tourists into the State of Karnataka. Even on the basis of the submission made by the learned govt Advocate, it has to be held that persons who, are holders of permits under- sub-sec (7) of S. 63 of the Act, should be allowed to have the right to enter into a contract outside the State for the purpose of carrying tourists of the State of Karnataka It cannot be said that if the holders of permits are allowed to exercise that privilege the purpose of the Act would be defeated. The reasonableness or unreasonableness of the condition imposed on the right to carry on the business depends on the object with which it is impose and the nature of public interest that it has to subserve. In a case where the operator of a tourist vehicle carries touiriste from place inside the State of Karnataka to a place, outside it under a contract and leaves them there, there is no good reason why he should not under a fresh contract carry another set of tourists from a place outside the State to the State of Karnataka on his return journey instead of running an empty vehicle. I am of the view that the condition which prohibits the petitioners from entering into a, fresh contract outside the state of Karnataka for the purpose of bringing the tourists into the State, of Karnataka, instead of advancing the purpose of the Act, would defeat it. Hence the condition that is imposed in the permits issued to the petitioners which toftally prohibits -them from entering into a fresh contract outside the State of Karnataka other than the extension or modification of a subsisting contract has to, be declared as void on the ground that it imposes unreasonable restriction on the right of the, petitioners to carry on the business in violation of Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constn It is therefor set aside. Liberty is, however, reserved to the STA to impose any condition regarding the right of the petitioners to enter into, a fresh contract outside the State of Karnataka in accordance with law and the observations made above. ( 5 ) THE petitions are accordingly allowed. No, coats. --- *** --- .