Karnataka transport department to enforce bike taxi ban by May 14 amid riders' plea for livelihood
BENGALURU: Officials of the Transport Department are gearing up to implement the ban on bike taxis by May 14.
In its order on April 2, the High Court of Karnataka gave six weeks to bike taxi aggregators to stop their operations. The court ordered the state government to ensure that the ban comes into force after six weeks. In a letter to Transport Secretary NV Prasad and Transport Commissioner Yogesh on April 25, Transport Minister Ramalinga Reddy directed them to take steps to ban bike taxi operations as per the court order.
Sources in the department said, 'As per the court order, the ultimatum ends on May 14. The department has to ensure that the court order is implemented by then. Bike taxi aggregators will be asked to stop their operations by May 14. If they fail to do so, there will be no other option for the department but to seize the vehicles and initiate action against the aggregators.'
On Monday, bike taxi riders met Reddy and submitted a petition, urging him to reconsider the decision to implement the ban order. Over 100 riders, including members of Namma Bike Taxi Association and those working with Rapido, Uber and Ola, met the minister.
In the petition, the riders urged the minister to protect their livelihood. "The government should formally recognise bike taxis as a legal mode of transport and implement a structured policy framework to protect their rights," they said.
'We are not criminals. We are trying to earn a living with dignity,' said Ramesh K, a bike taxi rider and member of the association.
He said, 'If bike taxis are legal in New Delhi and Maharashtra, why are we being denied this right in Karnataka?'
Many poor college students, single parents, and those who lost their jobs during the pandemic have become bike taxi riders. They now face a bleak future because of the order, the petition said. Stating that the Union government's Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2020, recognised bike taxis, the petition stated that Karnataka is yet to frame such guidelines.
N Reddy, a rider, said, 'If the government makes rules, we will follow them. There is no logic in taking away my only source of income in the absence of rules. How long should we wait for the government to make those rules?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
9 hours ago
- NDTV
Buses Operating On Polluting Fuels Banned From Entering Delhi From Nov 2026
New Delhi: No bus should be allowed to enter Delhi from November 1, 2026, unless it runs on clean fuel like CNG, electricity or the latest BS-VI diesel, the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) directed on Wednesday. The order applies to all buses entering Delhi, including those operating under All India Tourist Permit, contract carriage, institutional and school bus permits, except those registered in Delhi. Old and polluting buses from other states add to Delhi's air pollution. Even though cleaner fuel buses are now more common, many buses coming into the capital still use dirty fuel. The commission had earlier told states including Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir to switch to clean fuel buses by mid-2024 or early 2025. However, many did not comply in time. From November 1, 2026, only CNG, electric or BS VI diesel buses will be allowed into Delhi, the CAQM said. Delhi's Transport Department and Traffic Police have been asked to ensure strict compliance of this direction using automatic number plate recognition system and RFID at border entry points. Other state governments have also been told to inform all bus owners and companies about the new rule well in advance.
The Hindu
10 hours ago
- The Hindu
‘Instruct all local bodies not to permit constructions around protected monuments sans ASI's nod'
The High Court of Karnataka has directed the State government to issue circular to all local bodies not to grant permission for new constructions in and around protected monuments in the absence of no objection certificate (NoC) from the Archaeology Survey of India (ASI) as per the statutory requirements. Also, the court directed the government to make it clear to the officials empowered to grant permission for construction of buildings that disciplinary enquiry would be initiated if it was found that such permissions were granted contrary to law. Petition rejected Justice M. Nagaprasanna issued the directions while rejecting a petition filed by Denis Crasta of Mangaluru, who had questioned the ASI's notice issued in 2024 asking him to stop construction of a house. The Mangaluru City Corporation (MCC) in December 2023 approved the petitioner's plan for constructing a residential building on the landing owned by the petitioner. However, the ASI in May 2024 issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to stop construction as it was commenced sans obtaining a NoC from it as the petitioner's land comes within 150 metres from the Mangaladevi temple in Mangaluru, which is declared as a protected monument under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeology Sites and Remains Act, 1958. While the petitioner, citing Google Earth images, claimed that his land was situated 151.1 metres from the temple, the ASI after an inspection of the construction site pointed out that it was situated 64 metres from the prohibited area of the protected monument, and hence no new construction can be permitted on this land as per the provisions of the 1958 Act. Interestingly, the government had told the court that permission granted for construction sans NoC from ASI was illegal while pointing out that the petitioner's act of obtaining permission and putting up construction to a certain level is an act of 'fraud played by the MCC in connivance with the petitioner.' Indifference to rules Observing that it is not understandable how the MCC granted permission without keeping the ASI in the loop, the court said the permission was granted in blithe ignorance or indifference to the statutory embargo. Stating that officials of the MCC had wantonly ignored the mandate of the law permitting the construction, the court directed the government to initiate a disciplinary enquiry against the erring officials of the MCC as per law, and take appropriate action on identifying the role of each erring officials in grant of permission contrary to the law.
The Hindu
10 hours ago
- The Hindu
Courts must remain vigilant against weaponisation of criminal laws: Karnataka High Court
Courts must remain vigilant against the weaponisation of criminal law for settling civil disputes as the law, when misused, ceases to be a shield and becomes a sword, said the High Court of Karnataka while quashing a criminal case registered against a man by his business partner by invoking provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to settle a financial dispute. 'The complainant to take revenge or arm twist the petitioner for financial dispute, has made use of the criminal justice system. The subject complaint is a blade of vengeance, cloaked in the garb of law,' the court observed. Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while quashing the criminal proceedings against Vilas Bhormalji Oswal on a complaint lodged by his estranged business partner Somashekara of Bengaluru. Case background Mr. Oswal and Mr. Somashekara were partners in Green Land Infra, a real estate development firm established in 2011, with the former being authorised signatory of the firm and the latter being the managing director. However, certain differences cropped up between them leading to closure of the business in 2016 resulting in unresolved disputes. Meanwhile, Mr. Somashekara, who is a Scheduled Caste (SC), lodged a complaint with the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE) in April 2021 alleging that Mr. Oswal had made a casteist remark against him in December 2020. However, the DCRE had not acted on the complaint for nearly three years. Interestingly, the DCRE in February, 2024, recorded the statement of Mr. Somashekara and in March 2024 recorded the statements of two witnesses, known to Mr. Somashekara, who stated that they were present when Mr. Oswal allegedly abused the complainant. After recording the statements, the DCRE forwarded the complaint to the Jayanagar police in April 2024 for registering the criminal case. The police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet against Mr. Oswal and a trial court took cognisance of offences against him in June, 2024. However, the HC pointed out that the only allegation against Mr. Oswal in the complaint was that he told Mr. Somashekar at the playground, 'do not show your casteist mindset' and there was no allegation that the petitioner abused Mr. Somashekar by taking the name of his caste or that the so-called abuse was made in front of two persons, who were treated as witnesses after four years. Not in complaint 'The so-called eyewitnesses again are to be held to have been procured later, as there is no narration in the complaint that the incident was witnessed by two eyewitnesses nor the eyewitnesses would say that they accompanied the complainant to the ground,' the court observed while stating that if this case is permitted to proceed on these glaring facts, it would amount to an egregious abuse of legal machinery.
