Maharashtra Transport Minister Pratap Sarnaik has announced that knowledge of Marathi will be made compulsory for licensed autorickshaw and taxi drivers from May 1, warning that those who do not know the language risk having their permits cancelled.
However, nearly a decade ago, in 2017, the Bombay High Court set aside a similar decision by the transport department that required Marathi proficiency for autorickshaw permits. The court held that the state lacked the statutory power to impose such a condition, noting that autorickshaws fall under the category of ‘motor cabs,’ which are exempt from the Marathi language requirement for badgesapplicable only to ‘public service vehicles.’
OMKAR GOKHALE explains what the 2017 order stated and how the Maharashtra government’s new directive could run into legal hurdles.
The decision under challenge
A division bench of Justices Abhay S Oka (who later worked as Supreme Court judge) and Anuja Prabhudessai on March 1, 2017 passed a verdict on plea by Bhiwandi City Rickshaw-Taxi Chalak Malak Sanghatana along with other auto-taxi drivers’ unions challenging Transport department’s mandate of Marathi language knowledge for autorickshaw permits.
The HC noted that on October 23, 2015, state Transport Department wrote to Transport Commissioner about lapsed ‘Contract Carriage’ Permits under Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988 for autorickshaws. In December 2015, Transport Commissioner issued Public Notice inviting applications, and one of the conditions stated that applicants must have “knowledge of Marathi language and geographical knowledge of local area as per Rule 24 of Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules,1989.”
On February 20, 2016, Transport Commissioner directed RTOs on testing Marathi knowledge, challenged by unions. Petitions claimed state lacked statutory power to impose this condition. Justice Oka-led bench noted earlier November 2016 HC order expanded scope to commuters’ grievance redressal mechanism, recording public complaints about autorickshaw drivers’ behaviour.
State government’s justification
The Maharashtra government through its Transport department justified the eligibility condition, stating Rule 24 of Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules laid down procedure for issuing badges required to be worn by motor cab drivers, with knowledge of local language Marathi as one of the conditions.
Story continues below this ad
The state claimed nothing wrong in the condition that required motor cab drivers to communicate with citizens in Marathi and read and understand Marathi road sign boards.
Rule 24 stipulates procedure for issuing badges to drivers having authorisation for ‘public service vehicles,’ except motor cabs. Conditions mandate topographical knowledge of operation area and working knowledge of Marathi and any one language commonly spoken in that area.
Government argued drivers without Marathi knowledge may not understand commuter instructions, causing inconvenience to commuters. It referred to HC order of November 17, 2016, which prima facie observed the eligibility condition was “not unreasonable” as public service vehicle drivers are expected to know regional language.
Autorickshaws fall under ‘motor cab’ category exempted under rule: HC
Story continues below this ad
Justice Oka-led bench considered definitions under MV Act which provided that a Contract Carriage means a motor vehicle which carries passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under an express or implied contract and it includes a motor cab. The law defines motor cab as “any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward.”
The bench observed that the Bombay HC in 1966 verdict in Sunmitra Auto Rickshaw Sahkari Sangh case had held that an auto-rickshaw falls within the definition of motor cab.
The HC in 2017 held the autorickshaw is included in the definition of the motor cab and that Rule 24 specifically excludes such motor cabs. Therefore, the HC held the said Rule has “no application whatsoever to autorickshaws” and “the eligibility condition based on Rule 24 could not have been incorporated as a qualification for a person applying for the grant of a Contract Carriage Permits for autorickshaws.”
State can’t circumvent law with ‘public interest’ excuse, lacks statutory power: HC
Story continues below this ad
“Unless there is a specific provision under the said Act or under the Rules framed in exercise of power under the said Act empowering the State Government to prescribe such qualifications for the applicants who want to apply for Contract Carriage Permits in respect of autorickshaws, the State Government could not have lawfully imposed the impugned condition,” the HC held.
The Court said government was “under a mandate to act within four corners” of the Act and Rules. “Only by giving an excuse of public interest, the State Government cannot circumvent the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The State Government cannot apply Rule 24 as it is not applicable to motor cabs,” the HC held.
“In the circumstances, the challenge by the petitioners to the impugned condition will have to be upheld only on the ground that the State Government had no power either under the said Act or the Maharashtra Rules to impose such a condition,” it ruled.
HC issued directions for effective redressal of commuters’ grievances against motor cab permit holders/drivers.
Story continues below this ad
Enforcing existing rule through latest push, no new regime introduced: Transport officials
Transport department officials told The Indian Express that the eligibility condition follows Rule 24 of Maharashtra MV Rules and the present move enforces existing rule, and did not introduce new regime.
A senior Transport official justified the move and claimed that badges are mandatory after availing permit and taxis and autos are public service vehicles while tourist taxis will come under ‘motor cabs’ category. The official added that Rule 24 is required for badge and not for permit and the Court had not quashed decision regarding badges.
Drivers’ unions on the other hand claimed violation of fundamental rights including freedom to practice profession/business and the move is likely to be challenged before the court in due course.
