The main legal point established in the judgment is that a total prohibition or a blanket ban on the right to carry on any trade, business, or profession should be imposed in the rarest of rare or exceptional circumstances, and restrictions must not be arbitrary or of excessive nature.

Manmohan, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3rd June, 2015 passed by the respondent no. 1 rejecting petitioner no. 1’s application for licence under Modified Radio Taxi Scheme, 2006 as well as seeking an order restraining respondents from obstructing the petitioner and its AITP vehicle operators from conducting their business and providing services under the name ‘Uber’.

2. At the outset, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel for petitioners states that at this stage he is not pressing prayer (b) of the petition seeking an order restraining the respondents from obstructing the petitioners and its AITP vehicle operators from conducting their business and providing services under the name ‘Uber’.

3. The statement made by Mr. Rajiv Nayar is accepted by this Court and prayer (b) of the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn at this stage with liberty to agitate the same in a subsequent proceeding in accordance with law, if petitioners so desire.

4. Mr. Rajiv Nayar refers to the judgment and order dated 11th June, 2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Apra Cabs India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 5965/2015 whereby a similar impugned order was set aside.

5. Since considerable emphasis was laid on the aforesaid judgment in Apra Cabs India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra), the relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“5. The brief background to the petition is that a Public Notice was issued on 8th December, 2014 by the Transport Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) that other than the licensed cab services, taxi service providers Using web based technology are prohibited from providing such services till they get a licence from the Transport Department. That General Notice was challenged by ANI Technologies Private Limited (ANI), which runs “OLA Cabs” principally on the ground that the said ban order was passed without affording it an opportunity of being heard. Upholding that plea, the Court on 23rd December, 2014, passed an order in WP (C) No.9290/2014 filed by ANI and directed that its petition be considered as a representation by the appropriate authority and a final decision taken thereon within a period of ten days. Pursuant thereto an order was passed on 1st January, 2015, which, as already noted, is sought to be separately challenged by ANI.

6. As far as Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, i.e. APRA Cabs India Private Limited (APRA) and Serendipity Info Labs Pvt. Ltd. (Serendipity), are concerned they are aggrieved by the communications dated 3rd June, 2015 issued to each of them. The said notices refer to the applications filed on 24th & 7th January, 2015 respectively by APRA and Serendipity. The notice to APRA states that it is an associate of OLA Cabs and its application has been rejected by the competent authority since “you have failed to submit the sworn affidavit declaring therein that company named M/s. OLA CABS is complying with the ban order imposed upon it, in letter & spirit, in pursuance of letter of even numbers dated 24/03/2015 already issued to you.”

7. As far as Serendipity is concerned, the notice dated 3rd June 2015 states that it is a subsidiary of Taxi for Sure Cabs (TFS) and its application has been rejected by the competent authority “since you have failed to submit the sworn affidavit declaring therein that company named M/s. Taxi For Sure Cab (TFS) is complying with the ban order imposed upon it in letter & spirit, in pursuance of letter of even numbers dated 17/04/2015 already issued to you.”

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

10. As already noted the order dated 8th December 2014, has already been set aside by this Court since it was a general ban order passed without affording the parties affected an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, this cannot be a valid ground to reject the application made Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for grant of licence. In any event neither notice dated 24th March, 2015 issued