The Delhi government has appealed a high court decision that suspended a notice to bike-taxi aggregators Rapido and Uber and allowed them to continue operating till the final policy has been notified. The Supreme Court has asked the Centre for its position on this.
Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal, who were sitting on vacation, ordered that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta receive a copy of the applications. Senior attorney Manish Vashisht had claimed that the high court’s decision to postpone the government’s notice till the final policy is notified amounted to a virtual approval of Rapido’s writ suit.
On May 26, the high court ordered that no coercive action should be taken against the bike-taxi aggregator until the final policy was declared in response to Rapido’s petition challenging a statute that prohibits two-wheelers from being registered as transport vehicles. The high court stated in its listing of Rapido’s plea before the registrar for completion of pleading on August 22 that “The counsel for the petitioners (Rapido) submits that policy is under active consideration.”
The Delhi government order directing Rapido to immediately stop operating non-transport two-wheelers from carrying passengers on a hire-and-reward basis or for commercial purposes, according to Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited’s petition before the high court, was passed without any justification or rationale.
The government issued a public notice earlier this year warning bike-taxis against operating in Delhi and said that violators could face fines of up to 1 lakh.
In this regard, Rapido has also contested a show-cause notice that the municipal administration issued to it, claiming that it violates numerous fundamental and constitutional rights and was passed against the rules of natural justice.
“The direction issued by the transport department under the impugned notice is ex-facie arbitrary and passed without following due process under law, without providing any reasons for such prohibition,” the plea stated.
Additionally, it stated that the city government’s actions were against the Motor Vehicles Act’s meaning and purpose as well as the 2020 Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines (MoRTH Guidelines), which govern the issuing of licences to aggregators. “The transportation department has not yet established its own rules on the use of two-wheelers that are not intended for transportation as transportation vehicles for the purposes of aggregation and ride-sharing/ride-pooling.
Additionally, it stated that a total prohibition on the petitioner’s services would negatively affect the lives and means of support for a sizable number of everyday commuters, car owners, and riders.
Written By- Aditya Singh, College Name- Army Law College, Pune, Semester- 2nd Semester Student an intern under Legal Vidhya
0 Comments