HC rejects Rapido plea challenging refusal of licence

K A Y Dodhiya

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday rejected a petition filed by Roppen Transport, which operates bike-taxi aggregator Rapido, challenging the refusal by the Pune Regional Transport Office (RTO) to grant a licence to continue offering bike taxi service as the state had not framed any guidelines for such services.

However, the HC held that the absence of guidelines cannot be a ground for the aggregator to continue the services as it involved third party vehicles.

The division bench of justice Gautam Patel and justice S G Dige was informed by senior advocate Aspi Chinoy for the company that they wanted the court to decide on the limited issue raised in the petition, though there had been developments at the behest of the state following the filing of the plea.

The bench was informed by advocate general (AG) Birendra Saraf for the state that a notification was issued on January 19, 2023 wherein the aggregator’s services for two and three wheelers had been restricted for want of guidelines.

In an earlier hearing, the AG had informed the HC that a committee had been formed to consider formulating a policy for aggregator services for two-three wheelers, but till the same was prepared no such services could operate.

Chinoy, however, argued that after the motor vehicle department issued a notification in

March 2022 through which RTOs were permitted to act as licensors based on the centre’s Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2020 and the RTO could issue licences to aggregators.

In an earlier hearing, Chinoy had submitted that as the state did not have any guidelines for such operators, the centre’s guidelines would be applicable and hence, the rejection of Roppen’s application was not valid.

After hearing the submissions, the bench held that Roppen could not take a dual stand on its application being rejected on the grounds of the state having no policy in place, while on the other hand claiming a right to continue services under the guise of the 2020 guidelines of the centre under which the state was yet to formulate guidelines of its own. “The aggregator cannot assume under what conditions they can ply,” the court remarked.

Saraf further contended that the aggregator had failed to comply with the stipulations under the Motor Vehicles Act as the centre’s guidelines mandated a permit. He added that there was no compulsion on the state to issue a licence to aggregators.

While referring to an order of the Supreme Court, wherein it had directed a status quo after hearing an appeal by Uber against the HC order in a PIL which directed strict adherence to the 2020 guidelines, Saraf said that pendency of an application could not imply that the aggregator continued offering services.