JUDGMENT :

GS Patel, J.

1. Heard.

2. The 1st Petitioner operates what is called an aggregator service under the name Rapido. This is similar to services offered by the other aggregators for four-wheelers, two-wheelers and three-wheelers. In this Petition, the Petitioners are concerned with the 1st Petitioner’s services regarding two– and three–wheelers. Typically, the services operate like this. There is a multi-platform mobile application or App. Passengers/riders who desire to avail of the service must register on this mobile platform. Once, for a fee, they can ‘book a ride’. The passenger is picked up at his or her location, wherever the passenger presently is. The destination is also provided in advance. The cost of the ride is either debited to a credit card or to an account maintained with the service provider. This is an ‘aggregator’ because it brings together operators of vehicles on a single platform. The aggregator need not itself own the vehicles to be used. Private vehicles are often used to offer these services. Passengers can choose from a range of options, such as different car types, prices, and providers. Taxi aggregators also offer opportunities for drivers, such as flexible working hours and the ability to earn more money during peak times, In the context of two– and three-wheelers, and we will confine ourselves to this, these are said to be ‘third party’ motorcycle riders or vehicle operators. This is the statement in paragraph 1 at the very head of the Petition.

3. The question that arises in this Petition is whether the 9th Respondent, the Regional Transport Officer, Pune was justified in passing an order dated 22nd December 2022 rejecting the 1st Petitioner’s application to operate this two– and three–wheeler aggregator service in Pune.

4. Before we turn to the Petition itself, we note a very recent development. Yesterday, 19th January 2023, the State Government issued a Notification No. MVR-0821/C.R.95/TR-2 dealing specifically with the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 (of which more presently), and, in particular, Clause 15 of those guidelines. The effect of the Notification was to specifically prohibit the use of any non-transport vehicles, including two–wheelers, three– wheelers and four–wheelers, for the purposes of aggregation and ride–pooling. A copy of this Notification is handed up by Dr Saraf, learned Advocate General. So that there is no ambiguity about it, a scan of this Notification is appended at the end of this order.

5. In light of this, we asked Mr Chinoy whether he propose to amend the Petition to challenge the notification. His instructions were to state that the Petitioners would consider whether or not to challenge that notification separately. The Petitioners did not desire to amend the present Petition. He made it clear that he confine himself to the impugned order of 22nd December 2022 by the RTO, Pune. This is the basis on which we have proceeded today.

6. Mr Chinoy took us through a reasonably compact list of dates and events. We turn to those immediately, because they provide the necessary factual context. Once again, for completeness, a copy is appended.

7. The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (“the MVA”) suffered an amendment in August 2019 inter alia to Section 93. The original section was concerned with the requirement of a license by an agent or canvasser. The substituted section dealt with an agent or canvasser or aggregator and require the obtaining of a license. Section 93 as amended says this:

“93. Agent or canvasser 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