WP(C) 5742/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I,A.ANSARI.I Heard Mr. H.R.Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr . U.R.Saikia, learned Standing Counsel ,Transport Department , appearing on beh alf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Heard also Mr. D.Saikia, learned Counsel for re spondent No.4. The petitioner was granted a licence, on 16.8.20010, by respondent No. 1 , for one year to function as Collecting Agent/Forwarding and Distributing Agenc y, Collecting/ Forwarding and Distributing Agent/Booking Agent at Tengaguri, Lah arighat. On 19.8.2010, respondent No. 4 too was granted by respondent No. 1 a li cence for one year to function as Collecting Agent/Forwarding and Distributing A gency, Collecting/ Forwarding and Distributing Agent/Booking Agent at Tengaguri Bazar. The licence issued to the respondent No. 4 stands challenged, in the present writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner on the ground that after having granted licence to the petit ioner, the State-respondents could not have granted licence to the respondent N o. 4 enabling the latter to function as collecting Agent/Forwarding and Distri buting Agency, Collecting/ Forwarding and Distributing Agent/Booking Agent, at T engabari Lahorighat, at the same place inasmuch as both the places, namely ,Teng abari Lahorighat as well as Tengabari Bazar are, according to the petitioner, on e and the same place, whereas not more than one person could have been granted licence. While considering the present writ petition, it may be noted that grant ing of licence to a person to enable him to function as an agent or a booking ag ent, is governed by the provisions of Section 93 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 ( for short , the Act ) which read as under :- 93. Agent or Canvassor to obtain licence-(1) No person shall engage himself- (i) as an agent or canvassor, in the sale of tickets for travel by public serv ice vehicle or in otherwise soliciting customer for such vehicle, or (ii) as an agent in the business of collecting, forwarding or distributing goods carried by good carriages, unless he has obtained a licence from such authority and subject to such conditi ons as may be prescribed by the State Government. From a bare reading of the provisions contained in Sub-Section (1) of Sectio n 93 of the Act, it is clear that a person cannot engage himself as an agent or canvassor in the sale of tickets or travel by public service vehicles or in, o therwise, soliciting customers for such vehicle, unless he has obtained a licen ce from such an authority and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed b y the State Government. The licence, therefore, as required under Section 93 of the Act, is merely to enable a person to function as an agent or canvassor.There is nothing in Section 93 of Act prohibiting the State Government from granting licence to more than one person in exercise of the power’s conferred on it under Section 93 of the Act even if the parking place for such vehicles is one and th e same. Situated thus, it is crystal clear that not only the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 could have been granted licence, but even others also may be granted licence as agent or canvassor by the State Government for enabling them to function as Collecting Agent/Forwarding and Distributing Agency, Collecting/ Forwarding and Distributing Agent/Booking Agent at Tengabari, Lahorighat. Logically, therefore, the petitioner cannot object to the granting of li cence to the respondent No. 4 on the ground that the petitioner has already been granted a licence, on 16.8.2010, in this regard, in respect of parking place as mentioned. Considering the fact that there is no impediment, in law, on the part of the State Government, to grant licence to more than one person to function as a gent or canvassor, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner cannot invoke this Court’s extra ordinar y jurisdiction , under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is not a dmitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. Interim direction passed, in this case, on 12.10.2010, shall accord ingly stand vacated.