<p>The High Court on Monday extended its interim order barring surge pricing by taxi aggregators and on the need for police verification reports to grant licences to the aggregators. <br /><br />Justice Aravind Kumar extended the time after the government submitted that it will not take any coercive action for implementing the newly introduced Karnataka On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregators Rules, 2016 and that it will not seize vehicles.</p>.<p><br />Radio Taxis and Bangalore Tourist and Taxi Owners filed applications supporting the rules introduced by the government, which the bench accepted. <br /><br />Petitioners Uber India, one of the aggregators and others, challenged the newly framed aggregator rules stating that the rules are framed erroneously by implementing Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with the on-demand transportation technology aggregator platforms (ODTTP) and service providers being considered agents/canvassers relying on the Act. <br /><br />‘Digital platform’<br />The petitioner contended that they are providing a digital platform by connecting existing taxi drivers holding valid permits, to passengers seeking taxi services, through the mobile application. Hence, they come under the Information Technology Act and not under the Motor Vehicles Act, they stated. <br /><br />The petitioners have sought a stay and the striking down of the rules. <br />The bench directed the state government to file its objections in the next hearing on June 23.<br /></p>
<p>The High Court on Monday extended its interim order barring surge pricing by taxi aggregators and on the need for police verification reports to grant licences to the aggregators. <br /><br />Justice Aravind Kumar extended the time after the government submitted that it will not take any coercive action for implementing the newly introduced Karnataka On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregators Rules, 2016 and that it will not seize vehicles.</p>.<p><br />Radio Taxis and Bangalore Tourist and Taxi Owners filed applications supporting the rules introduced by the government, which the bench accepted. <br /><br />Petitioners Uber India, one of the aggregators and others, challenged the newly framed aggregator rules stating that the rules are framed erroneously by implementing Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with the on-demand transportation technology aggregator platforms (ODTTP) and service providers being considered agents/canvassers relying on the Act. <br /><br />‘Digital platform’<br />The petitioner contended that they are providing a digital platform by connecting existing taxi drivers holding valid permits, to passengers seeking taxi services, through the mobile application. Hence, they come under the Information Technology Act and not under the Motor Vehicles Act, they stated. <br /><br />The petitioners have sought a stay and the striking down of the rules. <br />The bench directed the state government to file its objections in the next hearing on June 23.<br /></p>
