Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 724
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3006 of 2023 (D No. 2490 of 2023) With Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3007 of 2023 (D No. 3314 of 2023), Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3008 of 2023 (D No. 5164 of 2023), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 95 of 2023, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 142 of 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2023
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr. D.S. Naidu, Sr. Adv., Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Adv., Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv., Ms. Suman Yadav, Adv., Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Tilak, Adv., Ms. Praprati Kedia, Adv., Ms. Shivani Sanghavi, Adv., Mr. Suyash Bhave, Adv., Mr. Mohit Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Ashish Mishra, Adv., Mr. Shubham Airi, Adv., Mr. Aman Dutta, Adv., Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Adv., Ms. Akriti Chaubey, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv., Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Adv., Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv., Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Adv., Mr. Shantnu Sharma, Adv., Mr. Bhuvan Kapur, Adv., Mr. Rohit Khare, Adv., Ms. Shreya Saxena, Adv., Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv., Ms. Gayatri Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR, Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv., Ms. Ronita Bhattacharya Bector, Adv., Mr. Rohin Bhatt, Adv., Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR, Mr. Akshay Deshmykh, Adv., Mr. Avineesh Jha, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's clarification that the challenge to the State Government's notification should be pursued under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the High Court shall not consider itself bound by its previous observations.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Aggregator License - Section 93, Section 96 - The court discussed the amended provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, particularly Section 93, which requires an aggregator to obtain a license from the State Government. The court also considered the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 issued by the Union Government, which contain provisions related to eligibility, conditions for granting a license, compliances with regard to drivers, vehicles, apps and websites, safety, and regulation of fares.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to challenge the rejection of their application for aggregator licenses by the Road Transport Officer at Pune, based on non-compliance with the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020. The State Government issued a notification prohibiting the use of non-transport vehicles for aggregation pending a committee's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court refused to entertain the challenge to the State Government's notification, directing the petitioners to pursue the alternate remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to challenge the notification under Article 226, clarifying that the High Court shall not consider itself bound by its previous observations.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the aggregator license application, the State Government's notification prohibiting the use of non-transport vehicles for aggregation, and the court's jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the challenge to the State Government's notification should be pursued under Article 226 of the Constitution and clarified that the High Court shall not consider itself bound by its previous observations.
Final Decision: The petitions were disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to move the High Court under Article 226 to challenge the State Government's notification. The State Government was directed to take a final decision on the committee's report by March 31, 2023.
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.
1. Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions granted.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3006 of 2023 arises from an interim order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 7 March 2022. In Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 95 of 2023 and 142 of 2023 under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek to challenge the validity of a notification dated 19 January 2023 issued by the State of Maharashtra. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3007 and 3008 of 2023 arise from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 20 January 2023.
4. The Motor Vehicles Act 1988,1[“Act”] was amended by Amending Act 32 of 2019, inter alia, to comprehend aggregators within the scope of its regulatory provisions. The expression “aggregator” has been defined in Section 2(1A) to mean a digital intermediary or market place for a passenger to connect with a driver for the purpose of transportation. Section 93 forms a part of Chapter V which deals with the control of transport vehicles. Section 93 was also amended in 2019 to cover aggregators. Section 93, as amended, reads thus :
“93. Agent or canvasser or aggregator to obtain licence.-
(1) No person shall engage himself-
(i) as an agent or a canvasser, in the sale of tickets for travel by public service vehicles or in otherwise soliciting custom for such vehicles, or
(ii) as an agent in the business of collecting, forwarding or distributing goods carried by goods carriages,
(iii) as an aggregator,
unless he has obtained a licence from such authority and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the State Government.
Provided that while issuing the licence to an aggregator the State Government may follow such guidelines as may be issued by the Central Government:
Provided further that every aggregator shall comply with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) and the rules and regulations made there under.”
5. The effect of the amended provision is that no person can act as an aggregator without a licence. The licence is to be “from such authority and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the State Government”. In terms of the first proviso to Section 93(1), the State Government, while issuing a licence to an aggregator, “may follow” the guidelines issued by the Central Government. Section 96 confers a rule making power on the State Government for implementing the provisions of Chapter V.
6. Following the amendment of the provisions of the Act in 2019, the Union Government in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways formulated the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020. The Guidelines commence with a prefatory statement that they have been issued “as guiding framework for State Government for issuance of licenses to transport aggregators and for the purposes of regulating the business conducted by such aggregators”. The guidelines have been issued in terms of the amended provisions of the statute, including Section 93, which stipulates that while issuing a licence to an aggregator, the State Government may follow such guidelines as may be issued by the Central Government. The Guidelines of 2020 contain diverse provisions; among them :
(i) Clause 4 which deals with the eligibility of an aggregator;
(ii) Clause 5 which provides conditions for the grant of a licence to an aggregator;
(iii) Clause 7 which lays down compliances with regard to drivers;
(iv) Clause 8 which enunciates compliances with regard to vehicles;
(v) Clause 9 which refers to compliances with regard to aggregators’ apps and websites;
(vi) Clause 10 which stipulates compliances to ensure safety among other provisions; and
(vii) Clause 13 which makes provisions for the regulation of fares.
7. Clause 15 of the Model Guidelines is extracted below :
“15. Aggregation of non-transport vehicles by Aggregators:
(1) In furtherance of the Central and State Government's objective of reduction in traffic congest
