Setback for Rapido, Bombay HC rejects plea against refusal of license to ply bike-taxis in Pune

A division bench of Justice G S Patel and Justice S G Dige held that there was no merit in the plea and rejected the same. The bench observed that “Rapido had failed to show that want of policy of the bike taxi scheme was insufficient ground to reject their application for license”.

“It is also not correct in our view, having seen impugned order, to say that rejection was solely for want of bike or taxi guidelines. They were by no means the only factors, there were other discrepancies in the application,” the bench said. The high court said there was no merit in the petition and rejected it.

Meanwhile, Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the state government, informed the court that the state home department issued a notification on January 19 based on Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2020, prohibiting the use of non-transport vehicles for purposes of aggregation of bike taxis.

It said the notification expressly prohibited the use of non-transport vehicles including two, three and four-wheelers for the purpose of aggregation.

Saraf said the decision of the state had been taken after an independent committee to prepare a comprehensive policy for bike taxi aggregation conducted a study. The notification was issued thereafter. The panel had said it was important to prohibit the pooling of non-transport vehicles by aggregators to ensure the safety of the public and passengers as the rise in the use of such services raises practical and security concerns for passengers.

The panel had recommended that it was important to prohibit the pooling of non-transport vehicles by aggregators to ensure the safety of the public and passengers as the rise in the use of such services raises practical and security concerns for passengers. Saraf further submitted that the December 22 order issued by Regional Transport Office, Pune, included that the reason for rejection was non-compliance with requirements necessary for the authority to grant a licence and Rapido had been operating all its vehicle taxis without such permission.

He said there was no compulsion on the state government to allow services and neither the order of the coordinate bench in PIL related to Uber nor the Supreme Court order of status quo can result in “deemed license” to the petitioner.

Senior advocate Aspi Chinoy for Rapido submitted that since there were no proper guidelines, it could not comply with the same. However, the bench noted that Rapido had challenged the rejection order stating there were no guidelines in place.

“It is difficult to see how two arguments can coexist. On the one hand, they say rejection is bad in law as there are no guidelines, but on the other hand, when they were told that there was non-compliance of guidelines they say guidelines do not provide it.” the bench observed.

Chinoy said the petitioner had filed a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging the restraint to operate services across Maharashtra, the high court may consider its plea only on the aspect of the challenge to rejection by RTO, Pune.

“We are unable to see how any aggregator like Roppen (Rapido) can lay claim or allow to operate firstly without a license, and secondly without complete compliance that the aggregator requires,” the court said as it dismissed the plea.