ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT LTD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (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 β Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 β Aggregatorβs License β Claim of the petitioner to provide the service of an aggregator for two wheeler vehicles across the State of Maharashtra β Application for grant of license β Rejected by the RTO since it did not comply with the Guidelines of 2020 β Challenged to, before the High Court β 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 β For said purpose, a Committee was constituted β 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 β 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 β On appeal, held: There is no inclination to entertain the challenge to the notification β Petitioners would be at liberty to pursue the alternate remedy u/Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court β 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 β 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 β 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 βaggregatorβ 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.
Lex