Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 15753
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024 R BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24501 OF 2022 (MV)
C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 24486 OF 2022 (MV)
IN W.P.NO.24501/2022 BETWEEN UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT REGUS BUSINESS PLATINUM CENTRE PVT.LTD., LEEL 13 PLATINUM TECHNO PARK, PLOT NO.17/18, SEC-30A, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI-400705.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SHARATH SHETTY, SENIOR OPERARTIONS MANAGER, SOUTH INDIA Digitally signed ALSO AT NO.77, SURVEY NO.124/2, by N.A.L WIND TUNNEL ROAD, NARAYANAPPA MURGESH PALLYA, HAL POST, LAKSHMAM MA BENGALURU-560017.
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: K.G. RAGHAVAN SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK., ADVOCATE;
SMT. ANUPAMA HEBBAR., ADVOCATE;
SMT. Y. SANKEERTHI VITTAL., ADVOCATE;
SRI. SIDDHARTH AIYANNA., ADVOCATE;
SMT. DHARSHNI S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD GATE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
1ST FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.
3. COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY
1ST FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU 560027.
4. ADDITIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU, 1ST FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR RTO BENGALURU-560027. 5. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BENGALURU URBAN, JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560011.
6. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (AUTORICKSHAW PERMITS AND STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION)
1ST FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.
7. BHARAT TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION GROUP NO. 803, GAANA APARTMENT ROAD, NEAR RNSIT COLLEGE, CHANNASANDRA RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098 REP BY ITS PRESIDENT
8. SRI. G. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, PRESIDENT, KARNATAKA CHALAKARA OKKOOTA, HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 409/7C N. HURTHI BUILDING, TUMKUR ROAD, 2ND BLOCK PEENYA, BANGALORE-560058.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY., AG A/W SRI. A. MAHESH CHOWDHARI., SPECIAL COUNSEL A/W MS. RASHI SINGH., ADVOCATE;
MS. ADOORYA HARISH., ADVOCATE;
MS. KRISHIKA VAISHNAV., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI. AMRUTHESH N.P., ADVOCATE FOR R7;
SRI. S. NATARAJ SHARMA., ADVOCATE FOR R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DTD. 25.11.2022 BEARING NO. TD 241 TDO 2022 ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNX-A) AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.24486/2022 BETWEEN ANI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED REGENT INSIGNIA, #414, 3RD FLOOR, 4TH BLOCK, 17TH MAIN, 100 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 034 THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MS.SUKIRTI SINGH, SENIOR LEGAL MANAGER, REG.UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 ..PETITIONER (BY SRI. ADITHYA SONDHI., SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT : CHETHANA K.N, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER ROAD AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT AND CHAIRMAN, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KARNATAKA, 1ST FLOOR, TTMC, BUILDING, A BLOCK, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
3. ADDITIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
1ST FLOOR, TTMC, BUILDING, A BLOCK, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
4. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, 1ST FLOOR, TTMC, BUILDING, A BLOCK, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
5. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE MINISTRY OF ROAD, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1 PARLIAMENT STRET, NEW DELHI-110 001.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY AG A/W SRI. A. MAHESH CHOWDHARI., SPECIAL COUNSEL A/W MS. RASHI SINGH., ADVOCATE;
MS. ADOORYA HARISH., ADVOCATE;
MS. KRISHIKA VAISHNAV., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN., DSG A/W SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., CGC FOR R5;
SRI. AMRUTHESH N.P., ADVOCATE FOR IA 2/22;
SRI. NATARAJA SHARMA., ADVOCATE FOR IA 1/23;
SRI. GOWRI SHANKAR., ADVOCAT FOR IA 2/23)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF SETTING ASIDE/QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 25.11.2022 BEARING NUMBER TD 241 TDO 2022 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY RESPONDENT - STATE AS BEING WHOLLY ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, MALA FIDE, IRRATIONAL AND THEREFORE, ULTRA VIRES THE PROVISIONS OF THE MV ACT, RULES FRAMED THEREUNDER AS ALSO THE MOTOR VEHICLE AGGREGATOR GUIDELINES , 2020 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.12.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. M/s Uber India in W.P. No.25401/2022 is before this court seeking the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the Impugned Notification dated 25.11.2022 bearing No.TD 241 TDO 2022 issued by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure A);
b. Pass such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem expedient, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. M/s ANI Technologies Private Limited which operates under the Trade Union OLA is before the court in WP
24486/2022 seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of setting aside/ quashing the Impugned Notification dated 25.11.2022 bearing No. TD 241 TDO 2022 (ANNEXURE- A) issued by Respondent- State as being wholly illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, irrational and therefore, ultra vires the provisions of the MV Act, rules framed thereunder as also the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2020;
and b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, and/or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the Respondents to prescribe fares in relation providing auto-rickshaws on aggregator platforms in the State of Karnataka after properly considering, qualitatively assessing the relevant factors and more importantly, adhering to the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2020; and c. Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
3. In both the above matters, the petitioners are challenging the fare fixed by the state government with respect to autorickshaws on-boarded on their respective platforms, which are accessed by a mobile application.
Submissions of Shri K G Raghavan Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Uber
4. Sri. K.G. Raghavan learned Senior counsel instructed by Sri. Pradeep Naik, learned counsel for Uber, the petitioner in W.P. No.25401/2022, would submit that; 4.1. Uber is a technology-based aggregator that facilitates transportation services whose platform is known as the Uber App and has been in operation in the country since 2013; with respect to taxis, in the year 2018, it started onboarding and operating autorickshaws on the said platform through the said app.
4.2. On 6.10.2022, respondent No.2-Chairman, Karnataka State Transport Authority and Respondent No.3–Commissioner for Transport and Road Safety issued a notice to Uber followed by an order on 11.10.2022 directing Uber to stop aggregation of autorickshaws since Uber did not have a valid license to aggregate autorickshaws, and further since Uber was in breach of the fare notification dated 6.11.2021 where under fares were fixed for autorickshaws.
4.3. Uber challenged both the notice and order in W.P. No.20437/2022, wherein an interim order of stay was granted on 14.10.2022 subject to Uber following the fare notification dated 6.11.2021 with an addition of 10% and applicable service taxes chargeable towards service /convenience fee of Uber. His submission is that this was only an interim arrangement operational for 15 days until the State government fixes the fare. The said interim arrangement was made on the premise that the State was open and willing to formulate fare fixation within 10 to 12 days by the respondents adhering to Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020. However, the respondents, in variance to the said understanding, issued the impugned notification on 25.11.2022 under Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [‘M.V. Act’ for short] directing the Regional Transport Authorities [RTA] to fix service fees as regards autorickshaw cabs at 5% of the fare transaction, there was no revision of the actual fare itself.
4.4. The State has no power to regulate the service fee, which falls under the sole business domain and expertise of Uber. Insofar as the validity or otherwise of the License of Uber is concerned, it is contended that the same is a subject matter of W.P. No.2043
