Today, On 4th July, In the bike taxi appeal, Ola told the Karnataka High Court it was “seeking registration under the MV Act only,” stressing that no policy existed and the State ignored Court directions and their earlier representation.
The Karnataka High Court heard series of appeals that dispute a previous order from a single judge, which stayed bike taxi services in the state until appropriate regulations are established.
The Division Bench consists of Acting Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice C. M. Joshi heard the matter.
During the proceedings, Ola’s attorney began presenting arguments.
However, the High Court interrupted, asking,
“How are your arguments different from those made by the other appellants?”
The Bench emphasized its desire to avoid repetitive points.
In response, Ola’s lawyer stated,
“We are licensed aggregators.”
The Court noted that previous arguments had already addressed the owners’ perspective. The Bench instructed the lawyer to present any new information specifically from the aggregator’s standpoint.
It stated,
“The owner’s perspective has already been covered. If you have anything additional to add particularly from the aggregator’s point of view you may present that. Avoid repeating what has already been argued.”
The lawyer then referenced a writ petition filed by Ola in 2021, in which the company requested that authorities register motorcycles as transport vehicles and grant them the right to obtain a transport permit.
Also Read: “Women Prefer Bike Taxis”: Karnataka HC Hears Challenge to Ban on Services
He highlighted that the Court had issued an order on April 5, 2021, acknowledging such registration under the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act and instructing the State government to review Ola’s application within two weeks.
However, the lawyer contended that the State failed to take any action in response to this directive. Instead of complying, the State developed an electric-bike policy that disregarded both the Court’s instructions and Ola’s application.
Clarifying his earlier case, the lawyer said,
“My earlier writ petition wasn’t about any policy. It simply sought a direction for the authorities to consider and decide my application for registering two-wheelers as transport vehicles.”
He further urged the Court, “Please refer to the impugned order.”
The Court then sought clarification, asking, “So you’re saying no scheme existed at that time?”
The lawyer confirmed, stating,
“Yes, milords. I was only seeking registration under the MV Act, which I’m entitled to.”
He stated, “I request the Court to examine the impugned order.”
The Bench pressed for clarification again, asking,
“Are you saying there was no scheme in place at that time?”
The lawyer restated his point, affirming,
“Yes, milords. My earlier petition was simply to assert my right to register the vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act.”
After listening to these arguments, the Division Bench decided to continue the hearing on Thursday, concluding the session for now.