Latest news with #DhyanChinnappa
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Business
- Indian Express
Bike taxi ban: Denying permit to new entrants fuels monopoly, owners argue before Karnataka High Court
The counsel representing two bike owners in a case challenging the Karnataka High Court order to suspend bike taxi operations argued Wednesday that refusing to register vehicles as transport vehicles or issue contract carriage permits for motorcycles fuels a monopoly for existing operators. 'By refusing to register vehicles as transport vehicles or issue contract carriage permits for motorcycles, the state is effectively denying citizens their right to carry on a lawful business. This creates a monopoly for existing operators and stifles competition, contrary to the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act's liberal objectives. The market should determine viability through demand and supply, not state intervention,' argued senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa before the division bench of Justices Kameswar Rao and C M Joshi. In April, the Karnataka High Court ruled that bike taxis cannot be permitted to operate without proper notification of guidelines under Section 93 of the MV Act. With the order coming into effect on June 16, aggregators Rapido,Uber and Ola have stopped bike taxi operations in the state. The counsel for bike taxi owners also stated that the core issue is whether the state can impose restrictions on the operation of transport vehicles, such as motorcycle taxis, through executive policies or decisions that contradict the statutory framework of the MV Act and violate the fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. Article 19(1)(g) guarantees every citizen the right to practice any profession or carry on any trade or business, including operating transport vehicles on public roads. The petitioners also pointed out that the state argues it can restrict the operation of motorcycle taxis based on an unwritten or executive policy, citing reasons such as traffic congestion or protection of existing operators such as autorickshaws. 'The state's policy is not formalised through government orders or rules under the Business Transactions Rules. It appears to be based on ad-hoc objections, which cannot override statutory rights,' Chinnappa argued. The counsel added that if the state argues that excessive vehicles necessitate restrictions, such measures must be enacted through legislation, not executive fiat. 'For example, Singapore's vehicle quota system is legislated, not imposed by policy,' he noted. During Wednesday's proceedings, advocate Shashank Garg, representing the Bike Taxi Welfare Association, argued that bike taxis serve a vital function in alleviating traffic congestion and providing last-mile connectivity. 'They are a necessity, not a luxury,' he stated. Garg highlighted the Karnataka government's 2021 E-Bike Taxi Policy, which had initially formalised and supported bike taxi operations, as evidence of the state's prior recognition of their utility. He contended that the state's abrupt reversal of this policy in 2024, banning bike taxis, appeared driven by political motives rather than public interest. 'The 2021 policy laid a clear framework for bike taxis, acknowledging their role in urban mobility,' Garg stated. 'The sudden withdrawal smells of political expediency.' He further challenged the state's reliance on a 2019 expert committee report that recommended against allowing bike taxis in Bengaluru, arguing that the report was rendered obsolete by the subsequent E-Bike Taxi Rules, which permitted such services until their unexpected revocation. 'The state cannot cherry-pick outdated recommendations to justify its actions when its own rules have embraced bike taxis,' Garg asserted. Addressing the bench's queries on regulation, Garg clarified that the state holds the authority to regulate fares, noting that the current rate for bike taxis is approximately Rs 8 per kilometre. He emphasised their affordability and utility, stating, 'In congested areas or remote locations, bike taxis are often the only viable transport option, even for critical services like ambulances.'
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Automotive
- Time of India
Bike taxis are not luxury but necessity to ease traffic congestion, operators tell Karnataka high court
Bengaluru: The Bike Taxi Welfare Association argued on Wednesday that bike taxis are not a luxury, but a necessity in easing traffic congestion. The state govt's decision to ban the services affected 6.5 lakh bike taxis and 6 lakh dependent families. Senior advocate Shashank Garg, appearing on behalf of the association, submitted that the drivers had taken loans and there are no alternative employment opportunities. They put hard-earned money into buying vehicles. He suggested some interim arrangement could be made to enable the vehicles to ply by imposing conditions for the safety of drivers and passengers. Dwelling upon the ban, Garg submitted that there is a complete policy vacuum and pointed out that the E-bike rules of 2021 completely debunk the expert committee report of 2019, relied on by the state govt to ban bike taxis, as the E-taxi policy clearly spells out last-mile connectivity. He added the expert committee only considered and confined itself to Bengaluru city before making their recommendation for imposing a ban. He further claimed the ban was imposed more to benefit the autorickshaw drivers and termed it a political issue. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru Earlier, senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for a couple of motorcycle owners, continued his arguments. Referring to the ban, he submitted that the state govt cannot do it by an executive action. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 5 Dividend Stocks for May 2025 Seeking Alpha Read More Undo An executive action cannot supplant; it can only supplement. A transport vehicle with a contract carriage permit entitles it to be used as a taxi. The state created a scenario of impossibility. The state is duty-bound to give registration and permit. It was that day the state created a scenario contrary to judgements of the SC and the division bench of this court, Dhyan Chinnappa further added. "The state cannot complain that bike taxis are causing difficulties in Karnataka. We have traffic in this city because people from all over come here and stay. Population growth is an indicator of a growing economy," he further submitted. Meanwhile, a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameshwar Rao and CM Joshi adjourned the hearing to next Wednesday, i.e., July 2. Uber India Systems, ANI Technologies Private Ltd, and Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd (all aggregators), along with others, have challenged the single bench's order. On April 2, 2025, a single bench disposed of their petitions, referring to an expert committee report of 2019, which considered the impact of bike taxis on traffic and safety. "Unless the state govt notifies relevant guidelines under Section 93 of Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder, the petitioners cannot operate bike taxi services, and no directions can be issued to the state govt to consider their applications seeking the grant of aggregator permits/licences," the single bench said in its order. It is always open to the state govt to take measures, i.e., framing guidelines in relation to bike taxi services, the order further stated, while granting six weeks' time to cease operations. The said period was further extended until June 15 by another order.
Mint
2 days ago
- Business
- Mint
‘Unaware of ground realities': Karnataka High Court's bike taxi ban challenged, petitioners cite fundamental rights
Two individual bike owners on Tuesday challenged the Karnataka High Court's single judge bench order that recently banned bike taxis in the state. The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, argued that the Karnataka government cannot infringe upon the fundamental right to carry on a business or choose a bike taxi over the metro or a bus. They argued that the prohibition not only contradicts provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act but also severely impacts both their livelihood and public convenience. In April, a single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court ruled that bike taxis cannot be permitted to operate without proper notification of guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It also barred the state Transport Department from registering motorcycles as transport vehicles or issuing them contract carriage permits. The ban order was to be implemented from June 16 after a six-week grace period. 'The law enables registration of two-wheelers as transport vehicles. If the statute allows it, the state cannot override it by denying registration or permits,' Chinnappa said in the court. The contract carriage includes various types of vehicles, including motor cabs, which can range from two to six seaters, he added. Chinnappa further argued that the stoppage of bike taxis over the past 7-10 days had led to chaos for everyday commuters. 'News reports have shown how disastrous this ban has been for the public. The state seems completely unaware of the ground realities,' he said. 'If there are safety concerns, the state should address them through policy -- not by outright prohibition,' he said. The bench also heard appeals filed by aggregators Ola, Uber, and Rapido against the ban order. 'A blanket refusal to register an entire class of vehicles -- like motorcycles -- is not backed by the Motor Vehicles Act. The State cannot selectively disable a class by denying permits,' he argued. The high court has scheduled the matter for the next hearing on June 25.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Bike taxi ban challenged in K'taka HC citing fundamental rights violation
Two individual bike owners moved the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, challenging a recent single judge ruling that banned the operation of bike taxis in the state. The petitioners argued that the state cannot infringe upon the fundamental right to carry on a business or choose a bike taxi over the metro or a bus. Represented by Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, the owners argued that the prohibition not only contradicts provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act, but also severely impacts both their livelihood and public convenience. Appearing before a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi, Chinnappa contended that the Motor Vehicles Act allows two-wheelers to be registered as transport vehicles. Therefore, the state government cannot legally refuse to issue contract carriage permits to bikes intended for taxi use. The law enables registration of two-wheelers as transport vehicles. If the statute allows it, the state cannot override it by denying registration or permits, he said, adding that contract carriage includes various types of vehicles, including motor cabs, which can range from two to six seaters. The ban was earlier enforced through a ruling in April, where a single judge held that without proper notification of guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, bike taxis cannot be permitted to operate. The ruling also barred the Transport department from registering motorcycles as transport vehicles or issuing them contract carriage permits. The order was to be implemented by June 16, after a six-week grace period. Referring to the aftermath, Chinnappa argued that the stoppage of bike taxis over the past 7-10 days had led to chaos for everyday commuters. News reports have shown how disastrous this ban has been for the public. The state seems completely unaware of the ground realities, he said. Arguing on constitutional grounds, Chinnappa claimed that the right to carry on a business is a fundamental right, and the state's blanket ban violates this. If there are safety concerns, the state should address them through policy -- not by outright prohibition, he said. He also said citizens have the fundamental right to choose their mode of transport: One has the right to say, I prefer a bike taxi over the metro or a bus. The state cannot infringe upon this personal liberty. The bench was hearing appeals filed by aggregators Ola, Uber, and Rapido against the same order. Chinnappa, appearing on behalf of two independent bike owners -- Varikruti Mahendra Reddy and Madhu Kiran -- clarified that vehicle registration should not be contingent on being tied to an aggregator. Chinnappa also argued that while contract carriage permits fall under the domain of state governments, the power to register vehicles lies solely with the central government. He contended that the state has no authority to deny vehicle registration altogether, especially not by singling out two-wheelers. A blanket refusal to register an entire class of vehicles -- like motorcycles -- is not backed by the Motor Vehicles Act. The State cannot selectively disable a class by denying permits, he argued. When asked by the bench if bike taxis in other states are running without issues, the Advocate General responded that while some states permit them in limited numbers under aggregators, none offer unrestricted permits. Chinnappa rebutted by stating that Karnataka's own aggregator rules allow the inclusion of motor cabs, including two-wheelers. After extensive arguments, the court scheduled the matter for further hearing on June 25.
