LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT LTD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 571 · Decided: 07-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
571
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 571
571
ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT LTD
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(SLP (C) No. 3006 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 07, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND
J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act 1988 : ss. 2(1A), 93, 96 – Motor Vehicle
Aggregator Guidelines 2020 – Aggregator’s License – Claim of the
petitioner to provide the service of an aggregator for two wheeler
vehicles across the State of Maharashtra – Application for grant of
license – Rejected by the RTO since it did not comply with the
Guidelines of 2020 – Challenged to, before the High Court –
However, during the course of hearing, the State government issued
a notification wherein it noted that the issue of whether non-
transport vehicles ought to be permitted to be used as transport
vehicles including for aggregation and ride pooling requires
consideration – For said purpose, a Committee was constituted –
Pending the decision of the Committee, the State Government
prohibited the pooling of non-transport vehicles by aggregators in
order to ensure road safety of the general public and passengers at
large – High Court observed that the Guidelines of 2020 leave a
certain degree of latitude to the State Government and there is no
policy of the State Government on the basis of which the petitioners
would have an unrestricted right to obtain a licence – On appeal,
held: There is no inclination to entertain the challenge to the
notification – Petitioners would be at liberty to pursue the alternate
remedy u/Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court – The
correctness of the order of the RTO stands subsumed by the decision
taken by the High Court to entrust the examination of the entire
issue by the Committee, before it decides on the use of non-transport
vehicles for the purposes of aggregation and ride pooling – Order
of the RTO indicates that it has been passed on the ground that the
provisions of the Guidelines of 2020 were not complied with – Once
the State Government takes a final decision on the submission of
the report of the Committee, the petitioners would be entitled to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
pursue their legal remedies after complying with such terms and
conditions as may be prescribed in the decision of the State
Government.
EXTRA ORDINARY/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3006 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.03.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in PILL No. 9775 of 2020.
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3007 and 3008 of 2023, Writ
Petition (Civil) Nos. 95 and 142 of 2023.
Mukul Rohatgi, D. S. Naidu, Sr. Advs., Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Ms.
Anuradha Dutt, Ms. Suman Yadav, Chaitanya Kaushik, Abhishek Tilak,
Ms. Praprati Kedia, Ms. Shivani Sanghavi, Suyash Bhave, Mohit Tiwari,
Ashish Mishra, Shubham Airi, Aman Dutta, Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon,
Gaurav Agrawal, Ms. Akriti Chaubey. Advs. for the Petitioner.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Indira Jaising, Ms. Gayatri Singh, Sr. Advs.,
Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B. Varma,
Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Bharat Bagla, Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Shantnu
Sharma, Bhuvan Kapur, Rohit Khare, Ms. Shreya Saxena, Ms. Nupur
Kumar, Paras Nath Singh, Ms. Ronita Bhattacharya Bector, Rohin Bhatt,
Anand Dilip Landge, Akshay Deshmykh, Avineesh Jha, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions granted.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 3006 of 2023 arises from an
interim order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay dated 7 March 2022. In Writ Petition (Civil) Nos 95 of 2023
and 142 of 2023 under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek
to challenge the validity of a notification dated 19 January 2023 issued
by the State of Maharashtra. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos 3007
and 3008 of 2023 arise from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay dated 20 January 2023.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
573
4. The Motor Vehicles Act 19881 was amended by Amending Act
32 of 2019, inter alia, to comprehend aggregators within the scope of
its regulatory provisions. The expression β€œaggregator” has been defined
in Section 2(1A) to mean a digital intermediary or market place for a
passenger to connect with a driver for the purpose of transportation.
Section 93 forms a part of Chapter V which deals with the contro

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.