Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9511
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. M. SHYAM PRASAD, J
Uber India Systems Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.6421 OF 2022 [MV] CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION NO.14627/2021 [MV] WRIT PETITION NO.19869/2021 [MV] WRIT PETITION NO.24569/2023 [MV]
For the Appellant :(BY MR. SRINIVASAN RAGHAVAN V, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MR. Y SANKEERTH VITTAL, ADVOCATE MS. ANUPAMA HEBBAR, MS. DHARSHINI S AND MR. ABDUL HADIN, ADVOCATES)
For the Respondent:(BY MR. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH MR. MAHESH CHOUDARY, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, MS. RASHI SINGH AND MS. KRISHIKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATES)
Motorcycles can be classified as transport vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, but the State Government retains discretion to regulate their use as taxis based on public policy.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 2(7), 2(27), 2(28), 73, 74, and 93 - Petitioners engaged in Bike-taxi Services sought directions for the State Government to formulate a framework for using motorcycles as taxis. The State Government's refusal to permit motorcycles as transport vehicles was challenged. The court found that motorcycles can be registered as transport vehicles and issued with permits, but the State Government retains the authority to regulate this under its policy. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Policy Decision - The court emphasized that the State Government's policy decision not to permit motorcycles as taxis cannot be interfered with unless it is arbitrary or capricious. (Paras 15.1-15.6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, including ride-sharing companies and motorcycle owners, filed writ petitions against the State Government's inaction regarding the regulation of motorcycle taxis. The State Government cited safety and regulatory concerns in its refusal.
Findings of Court:
The court declared that without relevant guidelines from the State Government, the petitioners cannot operate as aggregators for bike-taxi services. The petitioners were given six weeks to cease operations.
Issues: The main issues were whether motorcycles can be used as taxis under the law and the extent of the State Government's regulatory powers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while motorcycles can be classified as transport vehicles, the State Government has the discretion to regulate their use as taxis based on public policy considerations.
Result: Petitions disposed of; petitioners must cease operations within six weeks.
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are engaged [and who propose to engage] in the business of providing technology- based platform that enables the Rider Subscribers to connect with Driver Subscribers associated with them for the purposes of hiring taxis/vehicles for point-to- point commuting or for time-based use within city limits [hereafter also referred to as ‘the Bike-taxi Services’] and also for intercity travel within India. The petitioners have filed their different representations with the State Government to sanction and implement a framework for the Bike-taxi Services. The State Government has not acted upon such representations, and therefore, they have filed their respective writ petitions for directions to the State Government/its officers to sanction and implement a framework for the use of Motor cycle on hire as a Transport Vehicle to carry one passenger on pillion.
2. These petitioners are joined by some of the owners of Motor cycle[s] who are keen to be part of the Bike-taxi Services. The petitioners rely upon the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, ‘the MV Act’], Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 [for short, 'the CMV Rules'], Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 [for short, 'the KMV Rules'] and the Division Bench’s order in Writ Appeal No. 4010/2019 which is decided on 05.04.2021. The State Government, asserting that it is open to it to evolve, sanction and implement a framework for allowing Motor cycles to be used as Taxis as a policy, relies upon a certain set of decisions, including the decisions of the Apex Court. A brief statement of the circumstances of each of the petitions is recorded as below.
The details of the petitioner in WP No.6421/2022 [M/s Uber]
3. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 under the name and style, M/s Uber India Systems Private Limited, and it is commonly known as ‘Uber’. This petitioner is licensed to function under the name and style, ‘Uber’ by its parent organization. The petitioner is issued with license under the Karnataka On- demand Transport Technology Aggregator Rules, 2016 [for short, ‘the ODTTA Rules’] to operate as an Aggregator who enables connecting the passenger [the intending passenger] to a driver of a Motor Cab through Phone calls, Internet, Web based services or GPS-based services. The petitioner has filed an application for renewal of this license under the ODTTA Rules in December 2021, and this application is pending consideration.
3.1 The petitioner contends that it provides the aforesaid Taxi services in 49 cities in the country and it has striven hard to ensure that its business module facilitates a safe and secure mode of transportation to its pillion riders and drive partners. The petitioner has listed safety features incorporated by it, and the list of such features are as follows: [i] Background Check of all Driver-partners, [ii] Insurance for Drivers and Driver Partners up to a sum of Rs.5 lakhs for bodily injury, It has referred to its partnership with reputed insurance disablement and hospitalization. [iii] In-app tool to report on accidents, [iv] Feedback System, [iv] 24/7 Helpline and Support Team, and [v] Deployment of Phone Anonymization Technology.
3.2 The petitioner, like the other petitioners, contends that it has filed different representations for leave to operate motorcycles as taxis with required registration and permits, but the State Government has not considered these representations. This petitioner also relies upon the different provisions of the MV Act, CMV/KMV Rules and the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court for directions as stated above. This Court, on 12.04.2022, has directed the authorities not to take precipitative action against this petitioner or its representative or its officer obstructing its Bike-taxi Services.
The details of the petitioner in WP No.14627/2021 [M/s Rapido]:
4. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 un
