Tirath Singh Thakur, J.—The Petitioners are carrying on business as Commission Agents in the sale and purchase of arecanuts. They have in these petitions assailed the correctness of an order dated 10th of May, 2000 passed by the Licensing Authority, under the Karnataka Moneylenders' Act, 1961, holding that the Petitioners are carrying on business in money lending within the meaning of Section 5 of the said Act, and are therefore liable to pay the additional security deposited in terms of Section 7(2) thereof.

2. The controversy arises in the following circumstances:

In connection with their business as Commission Agents, carried on in the APMC Yard, at Shimoga, the Petitioners advance loans to the arecanut growers which is then recovered out of the sale proceeds of the produce supplied by the latter. Apart from getting registered with the Commercial Department the Petitioners have been securing licenses under the Money Lenders' Act, 1961 also. Consequent upon the decision of this Court in Manakchand Motilal Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR (1991) KAR 1928 upholding the constitutional validity of Section 7-A of the Act, the Respondents issued a Circular dated 6th day of September, 199