No coercive actions against Uber, tourist taxi operators for now, HC tells State

December 08, 2016 01:05 am | Updated 07:52 am IST - Bengaluru:

BANGALORE, 11/12/2007: A view of Karnataka High Court in Bangalore.
Photo: V. Sreenivasa Murthy 11-12-2007

BANGALORE, 11/12/2007: A view of Karnataka High Court in Bangalore. Photo: V. Sreenivasa Murthy 11-12-2007

The High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday asked the State authorities not to initiate coercive actions against tourist taxi operators and private technology aggregator, Uber, for any violation of the Karnataka On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregators (KODTTA) Rules, 2016, until further order.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Justice Budihal R.B. passed the interim order after hearing the appeals filed by Uber India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and some taxi drivers.

“During pendency of these matters, the authorities shall not take any coercive action against the taxi operators who are plying after obtaining licence under Section 88 (9) of the Motor Vehicles Act and shall not take action against the appellants for violation of the Karnataka On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregators Rules, 2016,” the Bench said.

The appellants have questioned the November 10, 2016, verdict of a single-judge Bench which had upheld the constitutional validity of the KODTTA Rules though it had barred a few provisions.

Uber’s assurance

Meanwhile, counsel for Uber gave an undertaking to the court that they would not adopt surge pricing during the pendency of their appeal.

The Bench said the appellants could obtain licences under the new rule during the pendency of the appeal but the same would be subject to the outcome of court’s final view on the appeals.

Taxi operators are required more now as the autorickshaw service is affected owing to demonetisation, the Chief Justice remarked orally when a counsel representing the Radio Taxi Operators Association, which is supporting KODTTA Rules, contended that blanket stay order would defeat the purpose of rules. The government counsel too had opposed grant of any interim order in favour of the appellants.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.