License Necessary To Operate As Cab Aggregator : Supreme Court Asks Uber To Apply For License From Maharashtra Govt
The Supreme Court on Monday, directed Uber to apply for a license as per Section 93(1) of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2019 within a period of 3 weeks (on or before 6th March, 2023), to continue its services as an aggregator in the State of Maharashtra. At the same time, the Court also allowed Uber to make a representation to the State of Maharashtra to ventilate its grievances with regard...
The Supreme Court on Monday, directed Uber to apply for a license as per Section 93(1) of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2019 within a period of 3 weeks (on or before 6th March, 2023), to continue its services as an aggregator in the State of Maharashtra. At the same time, the Court also allowed Uber to make a representation to the State of Maharashtra to ventilate its grievances with regard to the conditions imposed while granting provisional license . The bench also asked the State government to expeditiously frame the guidelines for aggregators. The matter was listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala.
The bench was hearing Uber's challenge to March 7, 2022 order of the Bombay High Court which directed that cab aggregators should comply with Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020. The Aggregator Guidelines were notified by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 93(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Vinay Joshi had directed that the aggregators must apply for license by March 16, 2022 for operating in the State of Maharashtra. In April 2022, while granting an interim relief to Uber against the said order, the Supreme Court had directed status quo on the order of the Bombay High Court. This status quo order has been extended till April 20, 2023 in order to enable the petitioners to apply for a licence and for the State Government to take an appropriate decision.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court "correctly observed" that, in view of the statutory regime which has come into force with the amendment of Section 93 by the Amending Act of 2019, no person can continue as an aggregator in the absence of a licence.
The Court also referred to the order in Rapido's plea against the Maharashtra government's refusal to grant two-wheeler bike taxi aggregator license to the company. In that order too, the court had noted–
"In terms of the first proviso of Section 93, the state government, while issuing the licence to an aggregator may follow such guidelines as issued by the Central government".
However, the bench stated that it shall be open to Uber to submit a representation to State government. As per the order–
"The state government shall within a period of two weeks of submission of representation take a view of the grievance. The state government may then take an appropriate decision. In case of any subsisting grievance, it shall be open to petitioners to move the Bombay High Court."
The Court also ordered :
"The State Government, which has to act as a regulator, must take an expeditious decision on the formulation of an appropriate policy, which may be embodied in terms of the rules which are framed under the Act. The decision of the State Government should be taken expeditiously so as to avoid litigation and uncertainty".
The petitioner, Uber, was represented by Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta and the State of Maharashtra was represented by Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari.
Case Title : Uber India Systems Private Ltd and Another versus Union of India and others |SLP(c) No.5705/2022
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pritha Srikumar, AOR Mr. Atharv Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Adv. Respondent-inperson Ms. Fereshte D Sethna, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. Ms. Suman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Shivani Sanghavi, Adv. Mr. Shubham Airi, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR
Motor Vehicles Act 1988- Section 93- No person can continue as an aggregator in the absence of a licence- Supreme Court directs Uber to apply for license
Motor Vehicles Act 1988- Section 93, 96 - Cab aggregators license- Supreme Court directs State of Maharashtra to expeditiously frame the rules on granting aggregators license so as to avoid litigation and uncertainty