Uber, Rapido Suffer Jolt As Supreme Court Continues Ban on Bike Taxi

Uber and Rapido, which provide bike taxi services through the app, got a big blow from the Supreme Court on Monday. The Supreme Court has stayed the High Court order in which these bike taxi operators were allowed to continue service in Delhi. The High Court had directed the Delhi government not to take any action against these firms until a new policy is made.

The vacation bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal has given liberty to both these firms to request the Delhi High Court to hear their petition immediately. This bench rejected the High Court’s order of 26 May. order Has been banned. Along with this, the information of Delhi Government’s lawyer to give notification of the final policy before the end of July has been recorded. Two separate petitions were being heard in the Supreme Court. These petitions were to challenge the High Court order of May 26 of the AAP Aadmi Party government in Delhi. Last week, the court had sought answers from the central government in this regard.

The Delhi government had approved the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Scheme last month. In this, cab aggregators and delivery service providers were regulated in the capital. The scheme included having emergency buttons in taxis, integration with the emergency number ‘112’ and phase wise shift to electric vehicles (EVs). The Motor Vehicle Aggregator Scheme will apply to such entities, a person who engages a driver for carrying passengers or for the delivery of a product, courier, package or parcel of a seller, e-commerce firm or a consignor, through electronic, digital or any other means. Are connected with.

Earlier this year, Rapido had challenged the Bombay High Court’s order to shut down services in Maharashtra in the Supreme Court. Rapido did not have a license to provide bike taxi or autorickshaw services in Maharashtra. The Bombay High Court had asked Roppen Transportation Services, which operates Rapido, to immediately stop services in Maharashtra as the firm had not obtained a license from the state government.