Bike Taxi Service Appeal| “Seeking Registration Under The MV Act Only”: Ola To Karnataka HC
Thanks for studying this submit, do not forget to subscribe!
At this time, On 4th July, Within the bike taxi enchantment, Ola advised the Karnataka Excessive Court docket it was “in search of registration beneath the MV Act solely,” stressing that no coverage existed and the State ignored Court docket instructions and their earlier illustration.
The Karnataka Excessive Court docket heard collection of appeals that dispute a earlier order from a single decide, which stayed bike taxi companies within the state till applicable rules are established.
The Division Bench consists of Appearing Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice C. M. Joshi heard the matter.
Through the proceedings, Ola’s legal professional started presenting arguments.
Nevertheless, the Excessive Court docket interrupted, asking,
“How are your arguments totally different from these made by the opposite appellants?”
The Bench emphasised its want to keep away from repetitive factors.
In response, Ola’s lawyer acknowledged,
“We’re licensed aggregators.”
The Court docket famous that earlier arguments had already addressed the homeowners’ perspective. The Bench instructed the lawyer to current any new data particularly from the aggregator’s standpoint.
It acknowledged,
“The proprietor’s perspective has already been lined. In case you have something further so as to add significantly from the aggregator’s standpoint you might current that. Keep away from repeating what has already been argued.”
The lawyer then referenced a writ petition filed by Ola in 2021, through which the corporate requested that authorities register bikes as transport automobiles and grant them the suitable to acquire a transport allow.
Also Read: “Women Prefer Bike Taxis”: Karnataka HC Hears Challenge to Ban on Services
He highlighted that the Court docket had issued an order on April 5, 2021, acknowledging such registration beneath the Motor Automobiles (MV) Act and instructing the State authorities to assessment Ola’s utility inside two weeks.
Nevertheless, the lawyer contended that the State didn’t take any motion in response to this directive. As an alternative of complying, the State developed an electric-bike coverage that disregarded each the Court docket’s directions and Ola’s utility.
Clarifying his earlier case, the lawyer mentioned,
“My earlier writ petition wasn’t about any coverage. It merely sought a path for the authorities to contemplate and resolve my utility for registering two-wheelers as transport automobiles.”
He additional urged the Court docket, “Please consult with the impugned order.”
The Court docket then sought clarification, asking, “So that you’re saying no scheme existed at the moment?”
The lawyer confirmed, stating,
“Sure, milords. I used to be solely in search of registration beneath the MV Act, which I’m entitled to.”
He acknowledged, “I request the Court docket to look at the impugned order.”
The Bench pressed for clarification once more, asking,
“Are you saying there was no scheme in place at the moment?”
The lawyer restated his level, affirming,
“Sure, milords. My earlier petition was merely to claim my proper to register the car beneath the Motor Automobiles Act.”
After listening to those arguments, the Division Bench determined to proceed the listening to on Thursday, concluding the session for now.
