Decision on allowing bike taxis to ply in state can’t be left hanging over fire: HC to Maharashtra govt

However, a division bench of Justice G S Patel and Justice S G Dige said that it was difficult to accept the government’s position while it was not specifying when it would come up with the policy.

“The way out is, tell us a date when you (state) are going to make a decision. You can do it even on temporary transitional policy, issuing a licence for a temporary period, without any assurance that it will be continued after policy is framed. Where is the reason for you (government) to refuse for the want of policy or guidelines? We find it difficult. You may refuse it on any other ground but this. In Mumbai, from the point of traffic regulation, you may say it is possible only to the north of Mahim as even autos are not allowed beyond that. But it cannot be left hanging like this on fire,” Justice Patel orally remarked.

The bench also asked the state government to take a decision on the application filed by petitioner Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited, the operator of Rapido Taxi services in Mumbai and Pune, seeking bike taxi aggregator license, stating it “cannot refuse to entertain the same.”
The company has challenged before HC a state government notification of December 29, 2022 which refused to grant licence to such entities.

Advocate General Birendra Saraf for the state government submitted that at present, it cannot allow aggregators to run bike taxis, adding the same is not mandated under the adopted policy or as per Supreme Court and HC verdicts.

After senior advocate Aspi Chinoy for Rapido submitted that other aggregators are running bike taxis in the state without permissions, Saraf said the government has issued show cause notice to Uber, an aggregator company, for plying bike taxis without carriage licence, which is required.

The bench further said that it was aware of the constraints faced by the state government, adding the latter need not have the same criterion for granting licences to bike taxis in different cities.

“We are perfectly clear that there is no need for a one-size-fits-all or blanket policy for the whole state. You (the government) can specify within which city it can be granted and during what period of the day bike taxis can run etc. There could be different restrictions and safety requirements in place for each city or district. But a decision has to be made one way or another,” the court said.

Saraf said that while the state government would consider the suggestion, the petitioner company should stop plying its bike taxis. The court then sought a comprehensive list of aggregators plying bike taxis in the state and asked what action has been taken against them.

“Every company has to be on the same page. Either everyone is allowed to ply or everybody stops. In the absence of policy or safety guidelines, no such service should be allowed to ply. If you do not place any checks and balances on the operator, we will injunct you,” the court told the state government and posted further hearing on Friday, January 13.