Karnataka High Court
Varikuti Mahendra Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2025
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6421 OF 2022 [MV]
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14627/2021 [MV]
WRIT PETITION NO.19869/2021 [MV]
WRIT PETITION NO.24569/2023 [MV]
IN WP NO. 6421/2022:
BETWEEN
UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT REGUS
BUSINESS PLATINUM CENTRE PVT. LTD.
LEVEL 13 PLATINUM TECHNO PARK
PLOT NO. 17/18, SEC-30A, VASHI
NAVI MUMBAI - 400 705
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY, MR. RAVI MAHTO
ALSO AT-23RD FLOOR, ONE HORIZON CENTER,
GOLF COURSE ROAD, SECTION 43,
GURGAON-122002
ALSO AT NO. 77, SURVEY NO.124/2
N.A.L WIND TUNNEL ROAD,
MURGESH PALLYA, HAL POST
BENGALURU 560017.
...PETITIONER
(BY MR. SRINIVASAN RAGHAVAN V, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR MR. Y SANKEERTH VITTAL, ADVOCATE,
2
MS. ANUPAMA HEBBAR, MS. DHARSHINI S AND
MR. ABDUL HADIN, ADVOCATES)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
1ST FLOOR, 3RD GATE
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU 560001.
2. COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
1ST FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING
K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR
BENGALURU 560 027.
3. ADDITIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
AND SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT
AUTHORITY, BENGLAURU
1ST FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR RTO
BENGALURU 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE
GENERAL ALONG WITH
MR. MAHESH CHOUDARY, SPECIAL
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE,
MS. RASHI SINGH AND MS. KRISHIKA VAISHNAV,
ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE
APPLICATION DATED 19.02.2022 (ANNEXURE-A) MADE
BY THE PETITIONER; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2
TO PERMIT THE REGISTRATION OF MOTORCYCLES AS
TRANSPORT VEHICLES; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 TO PERMIT AGGREGATION OF MOTORCYCLES.
3
IN WP NO. 14627/2021:
BETWEEN
ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES PVT LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013
AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR
SAI PRITHVI ARCADE
MEGHA HILLS, SRI RAMA COLONY
MADHAPUR HYDERABAD
TELANGANA - 500081.
ALSO HAVING A BRANCH OFFICE
AT NO 148, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR
SECTOR 7 , HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560102
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR PAVAN KUMAR GUNTUPALLI.
...PETITIONER
(BY PROF. RAVI VERMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR MR.NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. ADDITIONAL TRANSPORT
COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
1ST FLOOR TTMC BUILDING
A - BLOCK, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560027.
4
3. THE COMMISSIONER
ROAD AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
1ST FLOOR TTMC BUILDING
A - BLOCK, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560027.
4. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
1ST FLOOR TTMC BUILDING
A - BLOCK, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560027.
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
6. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE
GENERAL A/W MR. MAHESH CHOUDARY,
SPECIAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE,
MS.RASHI SINGH & MS. KRISHIKA VAISHNAV,
ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R-1 TO R-6 NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE
BUSINESS OF THE PETITIONER IN OPERATING BIKE
TAXIS IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA; DIRECT R-1 TO
R-4 TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 8.4.2021 VIDE
ANNEXURE-F; DIRECT R-1 TO R-6 TO TAKE ALL
ACTIONS NECESSARY TO PERMIT REGISTRATION OF A
5
TWO WHEELER AS A TRANSPORT VEHICLE AND GRANT
OF APPROPRIATE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT TO
TWO WHEELERS REGISTERED AS A TRANSPORT
VEHICLE IN TERMS OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
1988 AND RULES FRAMED THEREUNDER; SET ASIDE
THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 19.07.2021 ISSUED BY
THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L.
IN WP NO. 19869/2021:
BETWEEN:
ANI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
REGENT INSIGNIA NO. 414
3RD FLOOR, 4TH BLOCK
17TH MAIN, 100 FEET ROAD
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560034.
...PETITIONER
(BY MR. ARUN KUMAR K, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
MR. FAISAL SHERWANI AND
MR. ADITYA VIKRAM, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER AND
CHAIRMAN
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
KARNATAKA, 1ST FLOOR
TTMC BUILDING A - BLOCK
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
3. ADDITIONAL TRANSPORT
COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
BENGALURU, 1ST FLOOR,
TTMC BUILDING
6
A - BLOCK, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560027.
4. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
1ST FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING A- BLOCK
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560027.
5. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT
AND HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1
PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI - 110001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE
GENERAL A/W MR. MAHESH CHOUDARY,
SPECIAL GOVERMENT ADVOCATE,
MS. RASHI SINGH, & MS. KRISHIKA VAISHNAV,
ADVOCATES, FOR R1 TO R4;
MS. NAYANATARA B.G., CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
COUNSEL FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE
APPLICATION/REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER ON 19.4.2021 AT ANENXURE-P1; DIRECT
THE P1 TO 4 TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO
PERMIT REGISTRATION OF A MOTOR CYCLE AS A
TRANSPORT VEHICLE AND GRANT OF APPROPRIATE
CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMITS TO MOTOR CYCLES
REGISTERED AS A TRANSPORT VEHICLES HAVING A
YELLOW REGISTRATION PLATE IN TERMS OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES RULES 1989 AND KARNATAKA MOTOR
VEHICLES RULES, 1989 AND THE ORDER DATED
5.4.2021 AT ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THIS COURT IN
THE WRIT APPEAL NO.4010/2019 TITLED ANI
TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED V. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
7
DIRECT THE R-1 TO R4 TO SANCTION AND IMPLEMENT
A FRAMEWORK FOR BIKE TAXIS IN VIEW OF S.O.
1248(E) DATED 5.11.2004 AT ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WHEREBY A MOTOR
CYCLE USED FOR HIRE TO CARRY ONE PASSENGER
ON PILLION HAS BEEN INSERTED AS A CATEGORY OF
"TRANSPORT VEHICLE" AND THE ORDER DATED
5.4.2021 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.A
NO.4010/2019 TITLED ANI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE
LIMITED V/S STATE OF KARNATAKA; ISSUE A WRIT OR
PROHIBITION, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO
4 NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE OPERNATIONS OF THE
PETITIONERS RELATED TO BIKE-TAXIS IN THE STATE
OF KARNATAKA.
IN WP NO. 24569/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. VARIKUTI MAHENDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
S/O VARIKUTI GURIVI R EDDY
RESIDING AT NO.2, LR MANSION
2ND STREET, MADIWALA
BTM 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560029.
2. MANOJ H B
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O BASAVALINGA S M
R/A 1577, 16TH A MAIN, 2ND PHASE
J P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078.
3. MADHU KIRAN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O SANJEEVA POOJARY
RESIDING AT NO.944/275/A, 23RD
CROSS, HSR LAYOUT, 3RD SECTOR
BENGALURU-560087
..PETITIONERS
(BY MR.MANMOHAN P N, ADVOCATE )
8
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
1ST FLOOR, 3RD GATE
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2 . TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY
THE COMMISSIONER FOR
ROAD TRANSPORT AND SAFETY
1ST FLOOR, A BLOCK
TTMCBUILDING, SHANTINAGAR
BENGALURU-560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE
GENERAL A/W SRI. MAHESH CHOUDARY,
SPECIAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE,
MS. RASHI SINGH, & MS. KRISHIKA VAISHNAV
ADVOCATES FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT R2 TO PERMIT THE USAGE OF THE
MOTORCYCLES OWNED BY THE PETITIONERS (BEING
MOTORCYCLES OPERATED WITH INTERNAL
COMBUSTION ENGINES) AS MOTORCYCLE TAXES AND
DIRECT R2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS/
REPRESENTATIONS DATED 28.07.2023, 28.10.2023
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES-C, D AND E AND
REGISTER THE MOTORCYCLES OF THE PETITIONERS
AS TRANSPORT VEHICLES U/S 41 OF THE MV ACT AND
ISSUE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMITS TO THE
PETITIONER U/S 66 R/W SECTION 73 AND SECTION 74
OF THE MV ACT AND DIRECT R1 AND R2 TO GIVE
9
EFFECT TO THE PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK FOR
REGISTRATION OF MOTORCYCLES AS TRANSPORT
VEHICLES IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, INCLUDING
THE FRAMEWORK OR MECHANISM PERMITTED THE
CONVERSION OF MOTORCYCLES REGISTERED AS
NON-TRANSPORT VEHICLES TO TRANSPORT VEHICLES
AND DIRECT R2 TO IMPLEMENT THE REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AND THE KARNATAKA MOTOR VEHICLE RULES,
1989 FOR REGISTRATION AND ISSUE OF CONTRACT
CARRIAGE PERMITS TO MOTORCYCLES AS MOTOR
CABS WITHIN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS FROM TAKING ANY
COERCIVE ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS OR THE
MOTORCYCLES OWNED BY THEM, WHEN USED AND
OPERATED TO CARRY PASSENGERS FOR HIRE OR
REWARD EITHER BY THE PETITIONERS THEMSELVES,
OR BY A PERSON DULY AUTHORISED TO SO OPERATE
THE MOTORCYCLE, ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO OPERATIONS
THROUGH APP-BASED MOTORCYCLE TAXI
AGGREGATORS, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE
PETITIONERS SECURE REGISTRATION AND THE
APPROPRIATE PERMIT UNDER DULY INTRODUCED
REGULATIONS REGARDING MOTORCYLE TAXIS.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
10
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are engaged [and who propose
to engage] in the business of providing technology-
based platform that enables the Rider Subscribers to
connect with Driver Subscribers associated with them
for the purposes of hiring taxis/vehicles for point-to-
point commuting or for time-based use within city
limits [hereafter also referred to as 'the Bike-taxi
Services'] and also for intercity travel within India.
The petitioners have filed their different
representations with the State Government to
sanction and implement a framework for the Bike-taxi
Services. The State Government has not acted upon
such representations, and therefore, they have filed
their respective writ petitions for directions to the
State Government/its officers to sanction and
implement a framework for the use of Motor cycle on
hire as a Transport Vehicle to carry one passenger on
pillion.
11
2. These petitioners are joined by some of the
owners of Motor cycle[s] who are keen to be part of the
Bike-taxi Services. The petitioners rely upon the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short,
'the MV Act'], Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 [for
short, 'the CMV Rules'], Karnataka Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989 [for short, 'the KMV Rules'] and the
Division Bench's order in Writ Appeal No. 4010/2019
which is decided on 05.04.2021. The State
Government, asserting that it is open to it to evolve,
sanction and implement a framework for allowing
Motor cycles to be used as Taxis as a policy, relies
upon a certain set of decisions, including the
decisions of the Apex Court. A brief statement of the
circumstances of each of the petitions is recorded as
below.
The details of the petitioner in WP No.6421/2022
[M/s Uber]
3. The petitioner is a private limited company
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 under the
name and style, M/s Uber India Systems Private
12
Limited, and it is commonly known as 'Uber'. This
petitioner is licensed to function under the name and
style, 'Uber' by its parent organization. The petitioner
is issued with license under the Karnataka On-
demand Transport Technology Aggregator Rules,
2016 [for short, 'the ODTTA Rules'] to operate as an
Aggregator who enables connecting the passenger
[the intending passenger] to a driver of a Motor Cab
through Phone calls, Internet, Web based services or
GPS-based services. The petitioner has filed an
application for renewal of this license under the
ODTTA Rules in December 2021, and this application
is pending consideration.
3.1 The petitioner contends that it provides
the aforesaid Taxi services in 49 cities in the country
and it has striven hard to ensure that its business
module facilitates a safe and secure mode of
transportation to its pillion riders and drive partners.
The petitioner has listed safety features incorporated
by it, and the list of such features are as follows: [i]
13
Background Check of all Driver-partners, [ii] Insurance
for Drivers and Driver Partners up to a sum of Rs.5
lakhs for bodily injury1, [iii] In-app tool to report on
accidents, [iv] Feedback System, [iv] 24/7 Helpline
and Support Team, and [v] Deployment of Phone
Anonymization Technology.
3.2 The petitioner, like the other petitioners,
contends that it has filed different representations for
leave to operate motorcycles as taxis with required
registration and permits, but the State Government
has not considered these representations. This
petitioner also relies upon the different provisions of
the MV Act, CMV/KMV Rules and the decisions of
this Court and the Apex Court for directions as stated
above. This Court, on 12.04.2022, has directed the
authorities not to take precipitative action against
this petitioner or its representative or its officer
obstructing its Bike-taxi Services.
1
It has referred to its partnership with reputed insurance
companies to provide insurance cover for accidental death,
disablement and hospitalization.
14
The details of the petitioner in WP
No.14627/2021 [M/s Rapido]:
4. The petitioner is a private limited company
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 under the
name and style, M/s Roppen Transportation Services
Private Limited, and it is commonly known as
'Rapido'. The petitioner is engaged in the business of
Bike-taxi Services through its website and mobile
application. The petitioner contends that it has
evolved its business module to ensure environmental
and health benefits, reduce parking problem and
traffic congestion, promotion of fuel conservation and
the increased use of under utilized Motorcycles. The
petitioner contends that, apart from the afore
benefits, its business module helps the owners of
Motorcycles augment their income.
4.1 The petitioner contends that the third
party riders [the owners] who enroll with it follow
stringent safety protocols, and it has listed in the
petition as the following measures put in place for the
15
safety of the riders and the general public such as [i]
a Mandatory e-KYC Compliance by the owners of the
Motorcycle which involves verification of driving
license, vehicle Registration Certificate, PAN card and
a profile photo, [ii] a mandatory Safety Gear for both
the rider and the pillion rider, [iii] a strict compliance
with the Traffic Regulations including speed limits,
[iv] a mandatory Insurance Cover for the riders and
the pillion riders2, [v] SOS features for the riders, [vi]
Masking of Mobile Numbers of the women pillion
riders.
4.2 The petitioner asserts that it is permitted
to operate its Bike-taxi services in the State of
Madhya Pradesh and the State of Tamil Nadu subject
to notification of the necessary Rules and
Regulations. Insofar as the State of Karnataka, the
petitioner contends that it has submitted multiple
representations [during Pre-Covid and Post-Covid
2 The reference is to Group Insurance for both the Riders and
the Pillion riders providing for Accidental Death Benefit,
Accidental Medical Expense Reimbursement, Temporary
Disablement Compensation and such other benefits.
16
period] for permission while detailing the difficulties
that it has faced in operating its services because of
certain threats by an association of Owners of Auto-
rickshaws and with the local Police issuing challans
for violation.
4.3 The State Government, by its
Endorsement dated 19.07.2021 [Annexure-L], has
rejected the petitioner's application for permission to
operate Bike-taxi Services referring to the Karnataka
Electric Bike Taxi Scheme 20213 [for short, 'the
Electric Bike Taxi Scheme'] and calling upon the
petitioner to file its application for permission under
the Scheme. The petitioner contends that it cannot
apply under the Electric Bike Taxi Scheme because it
does not propose to operate Bike-taxi Services only for
those who own electric Motorcycles. This Court, on
11.08.2021, has granted interim orders directing the
Transport Authorities not to take any coercive
measures against those who are enlisted with the
3 Notified vide the Notification in No.TD 160 TDO 2020 dated
14.07.2021
17
petitioner and its Bike-taxi services. This order is in
vogue, and in fact, these petitions are taken up for
expeditious disposal with the State Government
seeking vacating of this order [and similar orders in
the other petitions].
The details of the petitioner in WP No.
19869/2021 [M/s Ola]
5. The petitioner is a private limited company
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 under the
name and style, M/s ANI Technologies Private Limited,
and it is commonly known as 'Ola'. This petitioner is
in Car-taxi Services and in recent days has ventured
into Bike-taxi Services. The petitioner, with the
Notification of ODTTA Rules, has launched a Two-
Wheeler Taxi Pilot Project in February 2019.
5.1 The petitioner is served with the Show
Cause Notice dated 15.02.2019 by the Additional
Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority,
Bengaluru alleging that this pilot project is in
18
violation of ODTTA Rules and calling upon the
petitioner to show cause as to why its license under
these Rules must not be suspended. The
Commissioner by order dated 18.03.2019 has
suspended such license, but the license is restored
with the petitioner paying a penalty of Rs.15 lakhs.
5.2 The petitioner has almost simultaneously
initiated proceedings in the writ petition in WP
No.14485/2019 for directions to the authorities not
to permit Motorcycles [which are registered for
personal use] to be operated as Transport vehicles
[taxis] and to permit registration of Motorcycles as
Transport vehicles and grant Contract Carriage Permit
to such Motorcycles, or in the alternative, to
implement a framework to enable Motorcycles to be
used as Transport vehicles as contemplated under
the Central Government's Notification dated
05.11.2004 issued under Section 41[4] of the MV Act.
The petitioner's cause is premised in the assertion
that M/s Roppen Transportation Services Private
19
Limited, which also offers technological platform for
subscribers to use taxi services and operate under
the business name, Rapido, is permitted to operate
Bike-taxi Services.
5.3 This Court has disposed of the writ
petition on 12.09.2019, and a review petition in RP
No. 516/2019 as against this order dated 12.09.2019
is disposed of on 14.11.2019. This Court's order in
the aforesaid writ petition is carried in an intra Court
appeal in W.A. No.4010/2019 [which is first referred
to above]. This writ appeal is decided on 05.04.2021.
The details of these proceedings are set forth later in
the course of this order while describing the different
proceedings that the parties rely upon in respect of
their corresponding cases. In the present petition,
this Court, on 18.02.2022, because interim order is
granted in the writ petition in WP No.14627/2021,
has granted interim order against precipitation if this
petitioner offering Bike-taxi Services for Motorcycles.
20
The petitioner has belatedly commenced its Bike-taxi
Services.
The details of the petitioner in WP
No.24569/2023 [Owners of the Motorcycles]
6. These petitioners are individuals who own
Motorcycles, and they have registered with either M/s
Uber or M/s Rapido or M/s Ola offering their vehicles
to be used as Bike-taxis. They have also filed
representations with the Department of
Transportation, Government of Karnataka for
instructions on registering their motorcycles with
yellow board so that it could be used as taxis. These
petitioners have relied upon certain statements
attributed to a Hon'ble Minister to contend that they
will have to face penal consequences because their
Motorcycles as taxis are registered with M/s Rapido.
The petitioners have sought for directions to the State
Government to permit them to use their vehicles
[Motorcycles] as taxis permitting registration of these
21
vehicles as Transport Vehicles and to issue Contract
Carriage Permits.
This Court's orders on application for
impleadment and the questions for
consideration:
7. An Association of the owners of Auto-
rickshaws have filed application under Order I Rule
10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] to implead
itself as a contesting respondent. This Court has
rejected the application by the order dated
04.01.20234 opining inter alia that the petitioners do
not seek any final adjudication but only want this
4
The petitioners contend that such consideration must be in
the light of the earlier decision of this Court in similar
proceedings and certain circulars issued by the Central
Government. The petitioners do not plead cause for final
determination of any right per se and as such, the canvass
for decision in the present set of writ petitions is narrow. If
there could be any direction either to consider such
representation or to frame necessary framework, the
decision will have to be taken by the concerned, and the
process for such consideration could provide for
considering all aspects, including the concerns of those
whom the applicants state that they represent with
reasonable opportunity which would be reasonable in the
circumstances. When the merits of the applications are
considered from this perspective, this Court must opine
that the applicants would be neither necessary nor proper
parties.
22
Court to decide whether the respondents must be
called upon to formulate a framework to permit
Motorcycles to operate as Transport Vehicles relying
upon earlier decisions and that if there is a direction
to formulate a framework, they will be heard
accordingly by the concerned.
7.1 Subsequently, on 20.03.2024, upon
hearing, Mr. Arun Kumar.K, Mr. Srinivasan
Raghavan.V, Mr. A.V. Nishanth and Mr. P.N.
Manmohan, the learned Senior Counsels/learned
counsels for the petitioners, and Mr. Shashi Kiran
Shetty, the learned Advocate General, this Court has
proposed the questions for consideration:
[i] Whether this Court can hold that the
law as it exists today does not permit
bikes [Internal Combustion Engines] to
operate as taxis, and
[ii] If the answer to this question is in the
negative [i.e., the law does not prohibit
these bikes from operating as taxis], what
directions must be issued to the State
23
Government in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
7.2 When the questions as aforesaid were
framed, the Electric Bike Taxi Scheme was in vogue.
The significant features of the Scheme were that [a]
its objective was to promote urban mobility providing
the first and last mile connectivity solution for
citizens to access the public transport and also create
entrepreneurship opportunities, [b] a person is
permitted to engage in the Bike taxi business if the
concerned bike is a 'Battery Operated Vehicle' as
defined in Rule 2(u) of the CMV Rules, and [c] the
electric bikes [two wheelers] will also be issued with
Contract Carriage Permits. The State Government,
vide the Notification dated 06.03.2024, has
withdrawn this Scheme citing the following reasons:
[a] The Authorities have become aware of
violations, specifically the utilisation of
Non-transport Motorcycles (with white
boards) as Bike-taxis.
24
[b] The confrontations involving auto and taxi
drivers regarding the operation of bike
taxis.
[c] Instances of threats to women's safety,
raising concerns about law and order.
7.3 This Notification dated 06.03.2024 has
taken away the argument that there is an
unreasonable distinction in the State Government's
Policy on permitting Motorcycles to be used as taxis
and the question framed is enlarged to whether
Motorcycles can be permitted to be used as taxis
under the law as it exists today. It is indisputable
that the afore questions must be first examined in
the light of the decision in the earlier proceedings
commenced by M/s ANI Technologies Ltd. [M/s Ola]
in the writ petition in WP No.14885/2019 and the
Division Bench's orders in the subsequent writ
appeal in WA No.4010/2019. The Division Bench
has examined the canvass on behalf of M/s Ola that
it cannot be prevented from offering Bike-taxi Services
on its Application.
25
Reg: WP No.14485/2019, RP No.516/2019 and
WA No.4010/2019
8. M/s Ola has filed this petition seeking
directions to the State Government to [a] ensure that
no Motorcycles, which are registered for personal use,
are allowed to be operated as bike-taxis in any form,
[b] register a Motorcycle as a 'Transport Vehicle', and
[c] issue 'Contract Carriage Permit' to a Motorcycle
registered as a 'Transport Vehicle' or in the alternative
for directions to implement a framework in terms of
the Central Government Notification in S.O.1248 (E)
dated 05.11.2004.
8.1 This Court, by interim directions, has
called upon the Transport Department to file
compliance reports on Motorcycles being used as
Transport Vehicles [Taxis], and in compliance with
this Court's interim directions, the concerned from
the Transport Department has filed an affidavit. This
Court has disposed of the writ petition by its order
dated 12.09.2019 directing the Transport
26
Department to ensure that the Motorcycles are not
used as taxis and monitor the same from time to
time. This Court's order dated 12.09.2019 reads as
under:
"2. Pursuant to the various interim
directions during the pendency of the
present petition, officials on behalf of
respondents No. 1 to 4 have produced
compliance report by way of an affidavit
along with enclosures, Annexure R1 to
R6. Having regard to prayer made by
the petitioner read with interim direction
issued, grievance of the petitioner has
been redressed. It is evident from the
materials produced along with the
affidavit that it is continuous process of
prohibiting private vehicles
(motorcycles/bikes) used as taxis.
Therefore, Transport Department is
required to monitor from time to time and
to see that private vehicles
(motorcycles/bikes) are not used for the
purpose of taxi. The Commissioner of
transport Department is hereby directed
to prepare monthly report and made
available in his office for the future
reference. In view of these facts and
27
circumstances, the grievance of the
petitioner has been redressed."
This Court has also further directed the Authorities
in the following terms.
"The concerned authorities are hereby
directed to take note of section 193 of
the MV act and also in this regard,
report shall be prepared in the office of
the Commissioner of transport
Department from time to time."
8.2 M/s Ola Cabs has filed a review petition
against this order in RP No.516/2019 contending
non-consideration of the other relief/s i.e. for
registration of Motorcycles as Transport Vehicles and
for issuance of Contract Carriage Permit. However,
this Court by its order dated 14.11.2019 has
disposed of the review petition opining that the
representations can be made by the petitioner to the
concerned authorities, who shall consider the same
in accordance with law.
28
8.3 M/s Ola has carried these orders in an
intra-Court Appeal in WA No.4010/2019. The
Division Bench of this Court, on 05.04.2021, has
disposed of the appeal observing that [i] a Motorcycle
could be used for hiring to carry one passenger as a
pillion, [ii] even as per the Central Government
Notification dated 05.11.2004 a Motorcycle used for
hire would prima facie come within the definition of a
Contract Carriage as defined in Section 2(7) of the MV
Act, and [iii] the definition of a Contract Carriage is
an inclusive definition, which will include even a
Motorcycle which is to be used for hire or reward on
which a passenger could be carried on pillion.
8.4 In the light of the above, the Division
Bench has modified this Court's order dated
12.09.2019 in the writ petition directing that the
State Government authorities must consider the
application made by M/s Ola [or any other similarly
situate entities] having regard to the provisions
referred and in accordance with law. The Division
29
Bench has directed the authorities to consider the
application filed within a period of two [2] months
with liberty to the petitioner therein [M/s Ola] to file
applications within two [2] weeks.
The submissions by Mr. Srinivasan Raghavan V,
Mr. Arun Kumar K, the learned Senior Counsels,
Mr. A V Nishanth and Mr. P N Manmohan on
behalf of the petitioners:
9. The Division Bench in the Writ Appeal in
W.A.No.4010/2019 has reserved liberty to the
petitioners to file applications for registration of
Motorcycles as Transport Vehicles and for issuance of
Contract Carriage Permits directing the State
Government to consider such applications in the light
of its findings on whether Motorcycles can be
Transport Vehicles and in accordance with law. The
petitioners have filed repeated applications in terms
of this liberty, but the State Government has not
taken any action to either grant or refuse such
registration and permits. Therefore, the State
30
Government must be directed to consider their
applications filed.
9.1 The decision of the Division Bench in W.A.
No.4010/2019 has attained finality, and with this
decision, the State Government cannot gainsay that
the Motorcycles can be registered as Transport
Vehicles, and if these vehicles can be so registered,
the State Government is invested with the
jurisdiction under Sections 73 and 74 of the MV Act
to grant Contract Carriage Permits. The provisions of
KMC Rules also enable registration of Motorcycles as
Transport Vehicles and issuance of Contract Carriage
Permits.
9.2 On the Motorcycles being Transport
Vehicles, apart from the enunciation by the Division
Bench in the aforesaid intra-Court appeal, the
reliance is on the provisions of the MV Act which
define expressions such as Motorcycle, Motor vehicle
and Contract Carriage to contend that these will be
crucial as would be the provisions which define the
31
expression 'Private Service Vehicle'. The State
Government cannot, despite these provisions and the
decision of the Division Bench, successfully assert
that Motorcycles are not Transport Vehicles.
9.3 The Central Government, way back in the
year 2004, has issued notification under Section
41[4] of the MV Act specifying that Motorcycles used
for hire to carry one passenger on pillion will be
Transport Vehicles and has issued Communication
dated 22.01.2024 clarifying that Motorcycles will be
Transport Vehicles and this would be obvious from
the provisions of Section 178[3] of the MV Act. This
Communication dated 22.01.2024 must be construed
as issued in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
74[3][a] of the MV Act. The Central Government,
under this provision, can limit the number of
contract carriages generally, and if the Central
Government so directs, the State Government shall
direct the State Transport Authority/Regional
32
Transport Authority to so limit the number of
contract carriages.
9.4 The Central Government has been
promoting use of Motorcycles as Transport Vehicles
based on the reports filed by the Committees
constituted to address urban traffic congestion. The
Central Government has also evolved Guidelines,
2020 providing for Rules to govern the Aggregators'
business as intermediaries facilitating taxi services,
including Rider sharing. The different State
Governments have also, in tandem with Guidelines,
2020, framed Rules to facilitate and regulate the
Aggregators' business as intermediaries. The
petitioners are operating accordingly in multiple cities
across the country.
9.5 The petitioners have put in place different
measures that ensure protection of the riders/pillion
riders with insurance cover and safety measures to
meet the contingencies that could be because of an
untoward accident. In fact, there is a detailed
33
mention of the measures in the respective
memorandums of writ petitions. This Court has
referred to such measures in the earlier paragraphs,
and the endeavour in mentioning these measures is
to assert that the measures are adequate and in line
with the Guidelines, 2020.
Arguments by Mr. Shashi Kiran Shetty, the
learned Advocate General, who is assisted by the
learned Special Counsel Mr. Mahesh Choudary.
10. The Division Bench in the writ appeal in
W.A.No.4010/2019 has indeed concluded that a
Motorcycle would be a 'Contract Carriage' because it
will be a Motor Vehicle and a Transport Vehicle but it
has left open the question whether the Motorcycles
must be permitted to operate as Transport Vehicles
[Taxis] to be considered by the State Government in
the light of Sections 73 and 74 of the MV Act and the
provisions of the KMV Rules.
10.1 A permit can be issued only to a Transport
Vehicle. A Transport Vehicle by definition will be
34
either a private service vehicle or a public service
vehicle. A Motorcycle cannot be a private service
vehicle because such service vehicle must be
constructed and adopted to carry more than six
passengers for hire or reward. A motorcycle cannot
also be a public service vehicle as such vehicle must
be a Motor cab or a Maxicab or a Contract Carriage or
a Stage Carriage that can be used on hire or for
reward. The Motorcycle is defined as two-wheeled
vehicle but specifically excluding the expression 'for
hire or reward' and in which event, it would mean
that a Motorcycle cannot be used for hire or reward,
and therefore a Motorcycle cannot be registered as a
Transport Vehicle.
10.2 When permits are issued to operate as a
Transport Vehicle, fares are fixed under Section 67 of
the MV Act in accordance with the KMV Rules. These
Rules contemplate taxi meters for auto-rickshaw but
without reference to a Motorcycle, and therefore, the
prescribed form in Form No.36 refers to vehicles
35
other than Motorcycles. If Motorcycles are to be
permitted to be operated as taxis, fares must be fixed,
and the existing Rules do not permit it.
10.3 The Communication dated 22.01.2024
addressed by the Central Government to the State
Government/s is not a direction as contemplated
under Section 74[3][a] of the MV Act. This
Communication does not refer to any specific
direction, and at the most, it is only advisory.
Therefore it does not offer a cause of action for the
petitioners to contend that it must be acted upon for
necessary notification under this particular Section.
10.4 The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.4039 of 2023 in Government of NCT of Delhi &
Ors v. Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd.
& Ors., has emphasized that the vehicles shall not be
plied without permit underscoring the principle that
"no permit, no plying". Notwithstanding this
conclusion in their own matters, the petitioners [M/s
OLA and M/s Rapido] are permitted to ply Motorcycles
36
registered as private vehicles as Transport Vehicles
[Taxis]. The Supreme Court in this decision has
reiterated that it is the State's prerogative to
formulate a policy on Bike-taxi Services, and unless
such policy is formulated, Motorcycles cannot be
operated as Transport Vehicles [Taxies].
10.5 In the petition by M/s Ola in WP
No.14485/2019 [which is disposed of on 12.09.2019]
in which M/s Rapido is the sixth respondent, this
Court has held that Motorcycles cannot be permitted
to operate as taxis, and in this regard the Transport
Department must keep a constant vigil. This
direction, which is at the instance of M/s Ola, has
not been disturbed by the Division Bench and
suppressing these aspects, and taking shelter under
the interim order not to take coercive measures, M/s
Ola and M/s Rapido are operating Bike-taxies, and
this conduct must in itself disentitle the petitioners to
any relief.
37
10.6 Neither the provisions of the MV Act, nor
the provisions of the KMV Rules provide for
registration of the Motorcycles as yellow board
vehicles [Transport Vehicles] entitled for Contract
Carriage Permits. The Notification issued by the
Central Government under Section 41[4] of the MV
Act is only for the limited purposes of registration. It
would be relevant only if the State Governments
evolve a policy.
This Court's reasoning:
11. The question whether Motorcycles can be
permitted to be used as Transport Vehicles [Taxis] 5
under the law as it exists today will have to be
examined considering [a] whether the MV Act
envisages Motorcycles being used as Transport
Vehicles [Taxis]; [b] if it is open to the State
Government to formulate Guidelines to permit an
Aggregator to operate as an intermediary for a
passenger to connect with a driver for the purpose of
5
By the aggregators such as M/s Ola, M/s Uber, M/s Rapido
or by the owners of the motorcycles themselves.
38
transportation and if the State Government has
decided not to so permit as a policy decision, should
this Court interfere in these petitions.
Reg. whether the MV Act envisages motorcycles
being used as Transport Vehicles [Taxis].
12. The answer to this question must first be
in view of the definition of the expressions such as
Motor Vehicle, Motorcycle, Transport Vehicle, Contract
Carriage in the MV Act. The expression, Motor Vehicle
[or a vehicle], is defined under Section 2[28], and this
Section reads that it will mean any mechanically
propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads [whether
the power of propulsion is transmitted from an external
or internal source , but does not include [a] a vehicle
6
running upon fixed rails or [b] specially adopted
vehicle for use only in a factory or in any other
enclosed premises or [c] vehicle having less than four
wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding
25cm³. The expression, Motorcycle, is defined under
6
And it includes a chassis to which a body has not been
attacked and a trailer
39
section 2[27] to mean a two-wheeled motor vehicle,
inclusive of any detachable sidecar having an extra
wheel attached to the motor vehicle.
12.1 The expression, Contract Carriage, is
defined under Section 2[7], and it means a Motor
Vehicle which carries [i] a passenger for hire or
reward, [ii] is engaged under a contract [whether
expressed or implied] for the use of such vehicle as a
whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned
therein, [iii] the contract is entered into by a person
with the holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle
or any person authorized by him for his behalf, [vi] on
a fixed or an agreed rate of sum on a time basis
[whether or not with reference to any distance or from
one point to another], and [vi] in either case without
stopping to pick up a set of passengers not included
in the contract anywhere during the stretch. This
Section further stipulates that Contract Carriage will
40
also include a Maxi cab and a Motor Cab 7
notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for
its passengers. This provision reads as under:
(7) "Contract Carriage" means a motor
vehicle which carries a passenger or
passengers for hire or reward and is
engaged under a contract, whether
expressed or implied, for the use of such
vehicle as a whole for the carriage of
passengers mentioned therein and entered
into by a person with a holder of a permit in
relation to such vehicle or any person
authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or
an agreed rate or sum--
(a) on a time basis, whether or not with
reference to any route or distance; or
(b) from one point to another,
and in either case, without stopping to pick
up or set down passengers not included in
the contract anywhere during the journey,
and includes-- (i) a maxicab; and (ii) a motor
cab notwithstanding that separate fares are
charged for its passengers;
7
These two expressions are also defined under section 2[22]
and 2[25] of the MV Act.
41
12.2 A Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Appeal No. 4010/2019 has held that Motorcycles will
also be Contract Carriages which can be used as
Transport Vehicles [Taxis] on a conjoint reading of the
aforesaid expressions in the light of the Central
Government Notification dated 05.11.2004 issued
under Section 41[4] of the MV Act specifying inter alia
that a Motorcycle can be used for hire or to carry one
passenger on pillion as a Transport Vehicle.
"13. Therefore, a motorcycle could be used
for hire to carry one passenger as a pillion.
Even as per the Central Government
Notification such a motorcycle used for hire
would, prima facie, come within the
definition of contract carriage as defined
under sub-section (7) of Section 2 of the MV
Act, 1988, wherein a contract carriage
means a motor vehicle which carries a
passenger or passengers for hire or reward
and is engaged under a contract, whether
express or implied, for the use of such vehicle
as a whole for the carriage of passengers
mentioned therein and entered into by a
person with a holder of a permit in relation to
such vehicle or any person authorized by him
42
in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or
sum. The definition of contract carriage is an
inclusive definition, which includes a maxi-
cab and a motor-cab notwithstanding that
separate fares are charged for its
passengers. The definition of contract
carriage, is an inclusive definition and not an
exhaustive one, which would include even a
motorcycle taxi which is to be used for hire or
reward on which a passenger could be
carried on pillion as it is categorized as a
transport vehicle by issuance of notification
by the Central Government under the
provisions of the MV Act, 1988. In this
regard, reference could also be made to sub-
section (28) of Section 2 of the Act which
defines a 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' which
means mechanically propelled vehicle
adapted for use upon roads which includes a
Chassis and sub-section (27) of Section 2
which defines a 'motorcycle' which means a
two-wheeled motor vehicle, inclusive of any
detachable side-car having an extra wheel,
attached to the motor vehicle."
12.3 The Division Bench, after the conclusion
as aforesaid, and with the statement on behalf the
petitioner therein [M/s Ola] that a separate
43
application will be filed with the authorities for grant
of permit to operate as "an aggregator" extending Taxi
Services with the use of Motorcycles, has observed
that the authorities must consider such application
in the light of the provisions as stated above and in
accordance with law.
12.4 If on behalf of the petitioners reliance is
placed upon this exposition by the Division Bench to
contend that the State Government cannot dispute
that Motorcycles could be used as Transport Vehicles
[Taxis] and it would be open to an Aggregator to offer
Bike-taxi Services for such use of Motorcycles, on
behalf the State Government it is contended that
Motorcycles cannot be treated as Transport Vehicles
[Taxis]8 because of the definition of the expressions
"Transport Vehicle" and "Motorcycle" in the MV Act.
The emphasis is laid on the expression "for hire or
reward" as found in Section 2[47] which defines the
8 It is undisputed that the expression taxi or taxi services are
not separately defined under the MV Act and is covered
under the expression 'public service vehicle'.
44
expression Transport Vehicle and the absence thereof
in Section 2[27] which defines a Motorcycle.
12.5 The expression, "Transport Vehicle", is
defined to mean a Public Service Vehicle, a Goods
Carriage, an Educational Institution Bus or a Private
Service Vehicle. Indubitably, the significance of the
expressions Educational Institution Bus or Private
Service Vehicle will not be relevant for the present
purposes. The expression a Public Service Vehicle is
defined under Section 2[35] to mean "any motor
vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of
passengers for hire or reward and includes a Maxi
cab, a Motor cab, Contract Carriage and Stage
Carriage". This Court must observe that if the
expressions Maxi Cab and Motor Cab are defined with
reference to for hire or reward, the expressions
Contract Carriage and Stage Carriage are used using
9
9
The definition of the expression Contract Carriage are
extracted supra and the expression, Stage Carriage reads
as follows:
"Stage carriage" means a motor vehicle constructed or
adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the
driver for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for
45
the expressions fixed or an agreed sum and fares
respectively. The expression Motorcycle indeed is not
defined with reference to the expression for hire or
reward or for fixed or an agreed sum or fares, but by
definition [as exposited by the Division Bench in the
writ appeal in W.A. No. 4010/2019] Motor Cycles are
Contract Carriages and it can be used subject to an
agreement [with the concerned as mentioned in the
section] for a fixed or an agreed sum.
12.6 As such, it is not reasonable to opine that
Motorcycles, only because the definition in Section
2[27] does not refer to the expression for hire or
reward, cannot be used as Transport Vehicles [Taxis].
Incidentally, this Court must also mention that the
Central Government by its Communication dated
22.01.2024 has recently clarified that because
Motorcycles which fall within the definition of
Contract Carriage under section 2[7] it will be
Transport Vehicle and can be plied accordingly. The
individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for
stages of the journey.
46
Central Government has also referred to the
provisions of Section 178[3] of the MV Act stating
that this Section contemplates levy of a fine if the
driver of a two-wheeled Contract Carriage refuses to
ply or carry a passenger.
12.7 It is next contended that this Court in the
earlier rounds of litigation in WP No.14485/2019 has
held that the State Government, because it is not
permissible in law to allow Motorcycles to be used as
Transport Vehicles [Taxis], must constantly monitor
whether the Motorcycles are indeed being used as
Transport Vehicles/Taxis. It is argued that the
Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 4010/2019 has
not disturbed this finding, and therefore, it would not
be open to the petitioners, especially M/s Ola, to
contend that it must be permitted to offer services to
owners of Motorcycles/ Riders as an Aggregator.
12.8 However, this Court, in view of the clear
enunciation by the Division Bench that the
Motorcycles would be Contract Carriages and
47
therefore Transport Vehicles and this Court's own
opinion as aforesaid, is not persuaded to opine that
this Court's order in Writ Petition No. 14485/2019 is
not modified. This Court must also record that in the
last part of its Order, the Division Bench has made it
clear that this Court's order in such writ petition is
modified. The Division Bench, with M/s Ola offering
to make an application for registration of two-
wheelers [Motorcycles] as Transport Vehicles and for
issuance of permit to use them as Contract Carriages,
has reserved liberty to make such application and
directed the authorities to consider the same in view
of its exposition and in accordance with law.
12.9 Therefore, the State Government cannot
succeed either on the ground that the definition of
Motorcycle in Section 2[27] of the MV Act does not
provide for such vehicles being used for hire or
reward or on the ground that the orders of this Court
in WP No. 14485/2019 is not modified, and
consequentially, the first question is answered
48
holding that Motorcycles, under the provisions of the
MV Act, can be registered as Transport Vehicles and
issued with permits to operate as Contract Carriages,
but subject to this Court's further opinion on the
next set of questions formulated as stated at the first
instance as part of the larger question.
Reg. The details of the Guidelines notified by the
Central Government and State Government on
Aggregators and permitting the use of
Motorcycles as Transport Vehicles [Taxis]/ Non -
Transport Motor Vehicles for Rider Sharing/E-
Bikes.
13. The Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways [the MoRTH] has constituted a Committee
to propose Taxi Policy Guidelines to Promote Urban
Mobility. One of the key recommendations by this
Committee in its report submitted in the year 2016 is
that the States should promote bike sharing and e-
rickshaws for last mile connectivity. This Committee
has also suggested that there must be increase in the
49
awareness of the Transport Department's ability to
issue Contract Carriage Permits for Motorcycles.
13.1 In the meanwhile, the Central
Government has issued advisory to the States on the
Rules to be framed for safety of passengers who use
technology based on Demand Transportation
Technology Aggregator Platforms. The State
Government, in exercise of its powers under Section
93 [as it stood prior to Amendment Act 32 of 2019],
Section 95[1] and Section 96[1] read with Section 212
of the MV Act has notified ODTTA Rules, 201610.
These Rules define an Aggregator and also a Taxi. A
taxi is defined as meaning a motor cab having a
seating capacity not exceeding six passengers
excluding the driver with public service permit on
contract.
10
The constitutional validity of these Rules is challenged in
WP No. 30917/2016 and connected writ petitions. These
writ petitions are disposed of by the order dated
10.11.2016. This Court has held that certain provisions of
these Rules violate the Constitution but observing that
even without these violating provisions, the Rules could be
operated. This Court's order is called in question in
different intra court appeals in W.A. No. 4787-4788/2016,
and these intra-court appeals are pending consideration.
50
13.2 M/s Ola and M/s Uber have been issued
licenses under these Rules to operate as aggregators
for motor cabs. These licenses have expired, and
therefore they have filed applications for extension
with the competent authority issuing notices to both
to comply with certain requirements as mentioned in
the corresponding communications. This aspect will
not be germane for the present purposes, as the
question will be whether the petitioners [M/s Ola,
M/s Uber and M/s Rapido] can succeed in the
request for directions to the State Government to
evolve a Framework for issuance of licences to
operate as intermediaries for use of Motorcycles as
Taxis with the State Government taking the stand
that its policy decision is not to permit Motorcycles
[two wheelers] to be used as Transport Vehicles
[Taxis].
13.3 If the Central Government has issued
notification under Section 41[4] of the MV Act in the
month of November 2004 clarifying that Motorcycles
51
will be Transport Vehicles, it has also brought about
amendments to the MV Act vide the Amendment act
32 of 2019 which can enable a person [an entity] to
function as an Aggregator offering intermediary
services to those who want to offer Motor Vehicles as
taxis and those who want to hail such vehicles as
taxis. The Central Government has notified the Motor
Vehicles Aggregator Guidelines, 2020 [for short
Guidelines, 2020] providing for guiding framework
to the State Governments. The Guidelines, 2020
could be read to indicate that the Central
Government has provided for use of even Non-
Transport Vehicles as Taxis11 on the Aggregator's
platforms/app.
13.4 The 2016 Report filed by the Committee,
the amendments brought to the MV Act by way of
Amendment Act 32 of 2019 and the Guidelines, 2020
can be presented as indicative of the Central
11
A reference in this regard could be made to clause 15 as
mentioned by the Apex Court in Roppen Transportation
Services Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others, reported in
[2023]4 SCC 349.
52
Government's initiative to promote use of Motorcycles
as Transport Vehicles [Taxis] and even non-transport
- motorcycles to be used for Rider Sharing and the
Central Government's recent Communication dated
22.01.2024 [which is referred to supra] leaves no
room for doubt that it propounds use of Motorcycles
as Transport Vehicles.
13.5 The State Government, by its order dated
20.09.2018, has constituted an Expert's Committee
on Efficient and Sustainable Transport in Bengaluru
and Bike Taxis. This Committee has filed its Report
on 29.04.2019. The State Government's stand on
permitting Motorcycles to be used as Transport
Vehicles [Taxis] and even Non-transport Motorcycles
for Rider Sharing is premised in this Committee's
findings. This Committee comprises, amongst others,
of [a] the Principal Secretary, Transport Department,
[b] the Transport Commissioner, [c] the Commissioner
BBMP, [d] the Managing Director, BMTC, [e] the
Member Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control
53
Board and [f] a Senior Officer from the State Police
Department. This Committee has done a SWOT
analysis of implementing Bike-based mobility services
in Bangalore. The Committee has interacted with
different stakeholders including the representatives
from M/s Ola, M/s Uber, and M/s Rapido.
13.6 The Committee has identified Lower
Fares, Travel Time Savings and Accessibility on
Narrow Roads as strengths, and Enabling Last Mile
Connectivity as an opportunity that will be from
permitting Bike Taxis. The Committee has identified
Shifting Away from Public Transport, More Vehicle
Kilometres of Road, Unregulated Parking and
Obstruction, Higher Carbon Emissions as weakness
and Poor Road Usage Efficiency, Low Capacity, No
Safety and Security and No Additional Utility as
threats. The Committee has examined the advantages
of promoting Bike Rentals under Rent a Motorcycle
Scheme 1997 notified by the Central Government in
exercise of its powers under Section 75 of the MV Act,
54
as against promoting Bike taxis. The committee has
opined that:
"Bike taxis are assessed to be an unproven
and inappropriate model for Bengaluru and
other large Indian cities. The Committee was
further not convinced by the meeting with the
Bike-taxi Operators that the service will be
valuable in Bengaluru. They are not a
necessary service in the city given the
abundant transport options available and
they are more likely to aggravate the
negative impacts of the Transport Sector
further such as condition and contribution to
pollution and carbon emissions. The bike
taxis are among the least efficient modes in
terms of usage of the most constrained
mobility resource of roads."
The Committee ultimately has recommended that the
Bike-taxis should not be permitted in Bengaluru and
any existing operation should cease.
13.7 The State Government, in exercise of its
powers under Section 2[38A] of the MV Act, has
notified the Karnataka Electric Bike Taxi Scheme,
2021 enabling business in e-Bike taxis under a
55
license subject to certain terms and conditions. In
fact, most of the petitioners have projected their
grievance contending that the State Government is
discriminatory in permitting e-Bikes to be used as
taxis and such opportunity is denied to the owners of
the Motorcycles with Internal Combustion Engines
[ICE]. However, the State Government by its
notification dated 06.03.2024 has withdrawn this
notification for reasons, such as that the Scheme
does not extend protection to Women Riders, there is
continuous confrontation between auto
rickshaw/maxi-cabs and Taxi Associations leading to
law and order situation.
Reg. the expanse of the State Government's
jurisdiction under Section 93 of the MV Act:
14. The MV Act is amended by the Amending
Act 32 of 2019 providing inter alia for the definition of
an Aggregator and stipulating that no Aggregator
shall engage himself as such unless he has obtained
a license from the concerned authority. The
56
expression Aggregator is defined under Section 2[1A]
to mean, "a digital intermediary or a marketplace for a
passenger to connect with the driver for the purpose of
transportation". The next crucial provision in the MV
Act on the regulation of an aggregator's business is
Section 93. This Section first stipulates that no
person shall engage himself as an Aggregator12 unless
he has obtained a license from the concerned
authority. The next stipulation under this Section is
that the license for an Aggregator shall be subject to
such conditions as may be prescribed by the State
Government. This Section in the first proviso
mentions that the State Government may follow such
guidelines as may be issued by the Central
government while issuing the license to an Aggregator
apart from stipulating that the Aggregator shall
comply with the provisions of the Information
12
Or as an agent or as a canvasser in the sale of tickets by
public service vehicles or in otherwise soliciting customers
for such vehicles or in the business of collecting, forwarding
or distributing goods carried by the Goods Carriages.
57
Technology Act, 2000 and the Rules and Regulations
made there under.
14.1 Section 93 of the MV Act, material as it is
for the present purposes, is extracted and it reads as
follows:
"Agent or canvasser or aggregator to
obtain licence.- 1) No person shall engage
himself-
(i) as an agent or a canvasser, in the sale of
tickets for travel by public service vehicles or
in otherwise soliciting customers for such
vehicles, or
(ii) as an agent in the business of collecting,
forwarding or distributing goods carried by
goods carriages,
(iii) as an aggregator
unless he has obtained a licence from such
authority and subject to such conditions as
may be prescribed by the State Government.
Provided that while issuing the license to an
aggregator the State Government may follow
such guidelines as may be issued by the
Central Government.
Provided further that every aggregator shall
comply with the provisions of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of
58
2000) and the rules and regulations made
there under."
14.2 The Apex court in Roppen
Transportation Services Private Limited v. Union
of India and others13 has considered the efficacy of
these provisions. In the case on hand before the Apex
Court, the concerned Road Transport Officer rejected
M/s Roppen's application for license to function as
an Aggregator of two wheeler vehicles across the
State of Maharashtra holding, amongst others, that a
Scheme for Bike Taxis is not implemented. During
the pendency of the ensuing writ proceedings, the
State of Maharashtra issued notification prohibiting
the use of two-wheelers [Motorcycles] as Transport
Vehicles until a framework is put in place after a
detailed consideration of all circumstances. The State
of Maharashtra also constituted a Committee to come
out with a framework.
13 [2023] 4 SCC 349
59
14.3 The Apex Court, because the notification
issued by the State of Maharashtra prohibiting the
use of two-wheelers as taxis was challenged for the
first time under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India, has relegated M/s Roppen to pursue its
remedy against such prohibition observing that the
Committee constituted by the State Government on
evolving a Framework shall take its decision before
15.03.2023. On the efficacy of the guidelines framed
by the Central Government the Apex Court has
observed thus:
"10. The first proviso to Section 93
stipulates that while issuing a licence to an
aggregator, the State Government may
follow such guidelines as may be issued by
the Central Government. The Guidelines
which have been issued by the Central
Government have a persuasive value. They
are not mandatory. When the State
Government formulates rules in pursuance
of its power under Section 96, it may also
bear in mind the Guidelines which have
been framed by the Union Government in
2020. Both in terms of the first proviso to
Section 93(1) and the plain terms of the
60
Guidelines, it is evident that while these
Guidelines have to be borne in mind, the
ultimate decision is to be arrived at by the
State Government while considering
whether to grant a licence and in regard to
the formulation of rules in pursuance of the
general rule-making power under Section
96."
[The underlining is by this Court]
Thus, the Apex Court, in the light of the statutory
provisions and even the terms of the Guidelines,
2020 has found that the ultimate decision on
whether to grant a license to an aggregator and the
formulation of the rules in that regard under Section
96 of the MV Act is within the domain of the
concerned State Governments.
14.4 The State Government, because of the
Expert Committee's Report dated 29.04.2019 as
aforesaid, and perhaps because of administrative
exigencies, does not propose to evolve a framework to
permit registration of Motorcycles as Transport
Vehicles, or to grant Contract Carriage Permits for
61
Motorcycles or allow the Motorcycles which are
registered as Non-Transport Vehicles to be hailed as
Taxis, and frame guidelines to permit the Aggregators
to operate as intermediaries between the owners of
the motorcycles and the riders who hail such vehicles
as taxis. The State Government, in accord with this
policy decision, has also withdrawn the Scheme
notified under Section 2[38A] of the MV Act which
would essentially mean that even e-Bikes cannot be
used as taxis. As such, the next question is, can this
Court direct the State Government to revisit its
stand, and the directions that must ensue if this
Court could so direct the State Government.
Reg. this Court's interference with the State
Government deciding not to permit Bike-taxis.
15. As has been held by this Court, while
answering the other questions, a Division Bench of
this Court in Writ Appeal No. 4010/2019 has held
that the Motorcycles can be registered as Transport
Vehicles and issued with Contract Carriage permits.
This Court has also not accepted the canvass on
62
behalf of the State Government that because
Motorcycles cannot be used on hire or reward, it
cannot be Transport Vehicles. It could be argued
from this that a certain right flows to the petitioners
which cannot be defeated because of the State
Government's policy.
15.1 The MV Act in Section 93 has invested the
jurisdiction in the State Government to frame
Guidelines [when an aggregator is to be licensed in
this regard]. The Apex Court, in Roppen
Transportation Services Private Limited [supra],
has held that ultimately, it is in the State
Government's domain to make regulations or evolve
guidelines to permit Aggregators to enable use of
motorcycles as transport vehicles. In terms of this
jurisdiction, the State government has taken a policy
decision [a] not to permit Motorcycles [both e-bikes
and ICE bikes] to be registered as Transport Vehicles
or issue Contract Carriage Permits and [b] not to
63
permit Motorcycles registered as Non-transport
Vehicles to be used under Rider-Sharing.
15.2 This Court must opine that the petitioners
cannot assert a right under the statute [the MV Act]
to operate as aggregators to use Motorcycles as taxis
or for Rider Sharing unless the State Government
decides to permit the use of Motorcycles as Transport
Vehicles [or non-transport Motor cycles for Rider
sharing] under due Regulations/Guidelines. The right
in the petitioners this regard will crystallize only
when the State Government, given the dominant
power that is vested in it, frames Guidelines under
Section 93 and Rules under Section 96 of the MV Act
[or in exercise of the power that could be otherwise
under the MV Act]. The concomitant question
therefore will be whether this Court can at the
instance of the petitioners, who do not have a
crystallised right, interfere with the State
Government's policy decision and direct its officers
concerned to permit the petitioners to operate as
64
aggregators offering their platforms to be used to ply
motorcycles as taxis. If the petitioners do not have
such right, must be the first ground to refuse
interference.
15.3 The petitioners have also elaborately
pleaded about the measures that they are
individually taking to ensure the Riders' Safety and
Security, and in this regard, some of them have
mentioned about Masking Mobile Numbers, Group
Insurance, and Installation of Alarms. Some other
State Governments have permitted Bike-taxis under
its Regulations, but this Court cannot hazard an
opinion on the adequacy of the measures that are
proposed to be incorporated to ensure, what is
generally described as necessary regulations to
provide Rider Safety and Security, insofar as
Karnataka. The State Government, under the present
statutory scheme, will have to consider the adequacy
of these measures after wide consultation based on
specific conditions.
65
15.4 The State Government has constituted an
Experts' Committee, which has filed its Report [dated
29.04.2019] after interacting with different
stakeholders including the representatives of some of
the petitioners. It has conducted a SWOT analysis on
the outcome of the possible decision to permit Bike-
taxis. The Committee's final recommendation is that
Bike-taxis should not be permitted in Bengaluru and
any existing operations should cease. This Court
cannot direct the State Government, notwithstanding
its policy decision based on such Expert's Opinion, to
permit the petitioners' to operate Bike-taxi services.
The Apex Court in a string of decisions has
emphasized the limited role for the constitutional
Courts to interfere with the policy decisions.
15.5 This Court must refer to the decision of
the Apex Court in Census Commissioner and
others v. R Krishnamurthy14 wherein it is held that:
14 [2015] 2 SCC 796
66
"It is clear as noonday that it is not
within the domain of the courts to embark
upon an enquiry as to whether a particular
public policy is wise and acceptable or
whether a better policy could be evolved.
The court can only interfere if the policy
framed is absolutely capricious or not
informed by reasons or is totally arbitrary
and founded ipse dixit offending the basic
requirement of Article 14 of the
Constitution. In certain matters, as often
said, there can be opinions and opinions
but the court is not expected to sit as an
appellate authority on an opinion."
This proposition is also reiterated by the Apex Court
in the recent decision in State of Tamil Nadu and
another v. National South Indian River
Interlinking Agriculturist Association15.
15.6 Further, this Court, upon reading of the
different areas mentioned in sub-section 2 of Section
96 of the MV Act, is not persuaded to opine that every
aspect specific to Bike-taxi Services is covered under
the KMV Rules. The State Government, which is
15 [2021] 15 SCC 534
67
empowered under Section 96 of the MV Act to make
rules providing for a variety of measures under sub-
section 2 thereof, could under these provisions notify
necessary Rules when it is of the opinion that it is
expedient to provide for Bike-taxi Services. The State
Government could also have recourse to its powers
under the other provisions of the MV Act to formulate
and notify necessary Rules specifying the terms and
conditions upon which Motorcycles could be
permitted to be registered as Transport Vehicles and
for issuing Contract Carriage Permit. The specific
Rules, given the different aspects emphasized by the
Expert's Committee Report dated 29.04.2019 and the
safety concerns, must be in place for the Motorcycles
to be used as Transport Vehicles.
15.7 Therefore, it must be concluded that if the
petitioners do not have a crystallized right under the
MV Act, if the Experts' Committee has opined that
Bike-taxis must not be permitted in Bengaluru and if
the specific rules are not in place, this Court cannot
68
direct the State Government, notwithstanding its
policy decision, to continue permitting the petitioners
to operate as Aggregators for Bike-taxis. This Court
must observe that the State Government must be
alive to the emerging circumstances and the evolving
local conditions, and it cannot shut itself to the
possibilities of the emerging trends and technologies.
If the circumstances justify a new approach, the
State Government should not lag behind and it
should be open even to the petitioners, to goad the
State Government to such a change. This Court
should in this context muse, as it is famously said,
that an institution which refuses change becomes the
architect of decay.
16. M/s Rapido, M/s Ola and M/s Uber [the
petitioners in WP No. 14627/2021, WP
No.19869/2021 and WP No.6421/2022 respectively]
have the advantage of this Court's direction vide
Interim Orders dated 11.08.2021, 18.02.2022 and
12.04.2022 to the respondents not to be
69
precipitous16. It is brought on record that in terms of
these interim orders these petitioners are operating
Bike-taxi services. It follows that these petitioners
have put in some infrastructure in place and enrolled
riders [the owners of motorcycles]. They must be
given reasonable time to dismantle such
infrastructure and cease their respective Bike-taxi
services. This Court finds that it will be just to grant
M/s Rapido reasonable time to cease operating as an
Aggregator offering Bike-taxi Services.
In the light of afore, the following:-
ORDER
[A] The petitions are disposed of declaring
that, unless the State Government
notifies relevant Guidelines under
Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 and Rules thereunder, the
petitioners cannot operate as
16 At the time of pronouncement, it is pointed out by Mr.
Srinivasan Raghavan V, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr.
Shashi Kiran Shetty, the learned Advocate General that with
all these, the petitioners are operating Bike-taxi services and
therefore consequential changes have been made.
70
Aggregators offering Bike-Taxi Services
and the Transport Department, State of
Karnataka cannot be issued with
directions to register Motorcycles as
Transport Vehicles or issue Contract
Carriage Permits.
[B] The petitioners, [M/s Uber India
Systems Private Limited, M/s Roppen
Transportation Services Private Limited
and M/s ANI Technologies Private
Limited] are permitted six [6] weeks from
today to cease all their operations as
aggregators of Bike-taxis. The State
Government is called upon to ensure
that all Bike Taxi Operations are
stopped after these six [6] weeks.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
nv*
[ad_1]
Source link