The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear the Delhi government’s plea challenging the high court order staying its notice to bike-taxi aggregator Rapido and allowing it to ply till the final policy has been notified. A vacation bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal said it will hear the petition on June 7. Senior advocate Manish Vashisht, appearing for the Delhi government, said the high court’s decision to stay its notice till the final policy is notified is like virtually allowing the writ petition by Rapido. The bench said it will list the matter for hearing on Wednesday. On May 26, the high court, while issuing notice to the Delhi government on Rapido’s plea challenging a law that excludes two-wheelers from being registered as transport vehicles, directed no coercive action will be taken against the bike-taxi aggregator till the final policy has been notified. The high court, which has listed Rapido’s plea on August 22 before the registrar for completion of pleading, said in its order, ”The counsel for the petitioners (Rapido) submits that policy is under active consideration. Accordingly, we hereby stay the notice and make it clear that the stay shall operate till the final policy is notified. However, once the final policy is notified, if the petitioners are still aggrieved, they are at liberty to take steps before the appropriate forum.” In its petition before the high court, Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited, which runs Rapido, has said the Delhi government order directing it to immediately stop plying non-transport two-wheelers from carrying passengers on hire-and-reward or for commercial purposes was passed without any reason or rationale.
In a public notice issued earlier this year, the government had cautioned bike-taxis against plying in Delhi and warned that violations would make aggregators liable for a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh.
Rapido has also challenged a show-cause issued to it by the city government in that context, saying it is in violation of various fundamental and constitutional rights, and has been passed in violation of the principles 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 says.
It also says the city government’s conduct is contrary to the intent and object of the Centre with respect to issuance of licences to aggregators as laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act, read with the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2020 (MoRTH Guidelines).
Advertisement
”Transport department is yet to come up with its own guidelines with respect to plying of two-wheeler non-transport vehicles as transport vehicles for the purpose of aggregation and ride-sharing/ride-pooling. ”MoRTH Guidelines expressly allowed vehicle pooling in non-transport vehicles in furtherance of the central and state governments’ objective of reducing traffic congestion and automobile pollution and achieving effective asset utilisation unless it is prohibited by the state government,” the plea says.
It also says a blanket ban on the petitioner’s services impacts the lives and livelihood of a huge number of vehicle owners and riders as well as a substantial number of daily commuters.
