Disastrous For Commuters, Doesn't Take Into Account Traffic Issues: Bike Owners Oppose Bike Taxi Ban Before Karnataka High Court

Two Bike Owners opposed before the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (June 24), a single judge's order banning operation of Bike Taxis in the State, arguing that news reports have indicated how the ban has been disastrous for commuters. 

The argument made by the owners is that the relevant Aggregator Rules provides for onboarding of two wheelers and thus the ban prohibits them from registering their bikes and granting them contract carriage permits.

The owners have contended that MV Act provides for registration of two wheelers as transport vehicles and so if the statute provides it then State cannot say that it will not register these vehicles and not issue contract carriage permit to two wheelers to operate as bike taxis. 

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi was hearing the appeals filed by bike taxi aggregators Ola, Uber and Rapido against the single judge's order. 

For context the single judge had in April ruled that "unless the State Government notifies relevant Guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules thereunder, the petitioners (Ola, Uber, Rapido) cannot operate as Aggregators offering Bike-Taxi Services". The court had then further said that the State's Transport Department cannot be given directions to register Motorcycles as Transport Vehicles or issue Contract Carriage Permits. For context, contract carriage permits are issued by state governments which permits a vehicle to be used for the transportation under a specific contract, usually for a fixed purpose. 

It had further ordered the State government to ensure that all bike taxi operations cease to operate in six weeks. This date was extended till June 15. Thereby, Bike Taxis were to cease operations from June 16 in the State.

During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa appearing for two bike owners–Varikruti Mahendra Reddy and Madhu Kiran–argued, "I have a fundamental right to operate my business. If the law operates and you prevent it then it cannot be done. This is the grievance of the bike owners. If there is safety issue in operating bike taxi then a welfare state has to address it and it cannot come and say I will not allow you to operate. A transport vehicle is a public service vehicle, and it is further defined in four parts. Contract carriage is further divided in motor cab and maxi cab," he said.

"Motor cab is defined in aggregator license as well and aggregator rules provide for motorcabs. It includes upto 6 so it includes two also. I am entitled to be registered. I want to dispute the argument that every vehicle has to be linked to an aggregator. Today there are over 1 lakh bike taxis running and thus people utilizing them are also as many," he said. 

He thereafter referred to the report of the State Committee arguing that it had not mentioned about traffic congestion.

Chinnappa, "The committee said bike taxi is not required for Bengaluru. Today a person who has to travel cannot be stopped...everyone want a cheapest and fastest mode of transport...They (State) have withdrawn the E-bike policy. There is complete contrast in the stand taken with regards to e-bike and now". 

He further said that there is no restriction in contract carriage or transport carriage in law. He also said that in 11 states bike taxis are running under rules and in other states bike taxis are not running. 

The court asked, "Are they running smoothly". At this stage the advocate general said, "Limited vehicles are allowed in these states. No permit is given anywhere to run a transport vehicle as taxi. Only in 11 states under Ola and Uber they are running with limited numbers". 

Meanwhile Chinnappa said that Karnataka has aggregator rules and it includes bike taxis. 

Citizens have fundamental right to choose mode of transport

He submitted, "My fundamental right is to say that I do not want to go by metro or go by bike taxi and it cannot be infringed upon. The right to make a policy is absent in view of provisions of MV Act". 

On bike taxi aggregators Chinnappa said, "Aggregator does not have right to direct a vehicle to me as a driver I will choose and aggregator is only an intermediary". He argued that an aggregator can operate once vehicles are registered on its platform. He submitted that aggregators can argue that if law permits motorcycle to operate as a transport vehicle then aggregation can be permitted.

News reports indicate ban has been disastrous for commuters

"Aggregation rules which are there today permit two wheelers to be included on the platforms. For the last 7 to 10 days the aggregators have stopped bike taxis. Various news reports indicate that it has been disastrous for the commuters and state is not alive to it. There is no question for permission that is required, the state govt is bound to register as per statute," he said. 

He submitted that bike owners are entitled to contract carriage permit under law and are entitled to registration of bikes as transport vehicle. He said that the State has said that they will not give permit to anybody adding that this right is not vested with state. He further argued that the bike owners have an absolute right to having contract carriage. 

He further said that registration of vehicles is in absolute domain of Central government and State has nothing to do with the same. He said that only contract carriage permits are in the domain of State government but are subject to certain limitations to be issued by Central government. 

State cannot single out two wheelers by denying permit

He argued that State cannot by way of a decision disable an entire class of vehicles i.e. motorcycles. At most it can limit contract carriage permit for an overall class of vehicles; but singling out two wheelers is not permitted.

He thereafter said, "A class refusal of registration (of all motorcycles) is absent in MV Act". He said that though power to grant contract carriage permit is with state but it does not have a choice to grant to a particular class and not grant to a particular class of vehicles.

After hearing the matter for some time the court listed the matter on Wednesday at 2:30pm.