7/5/23, 3:01 PM High Court of Karnataka Official Web Site

Skip to main content

Status: Pending
Case Number: WP 20437/2022 Classification: MV Date of Filing: 13/10/2022
(KAHC010475642022) 15:36:25
Petitioner: UBER INDIA Pet. Advocate: PRADEEP
SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED NAYAK
Respondent: STATE OF Resp. Advocate:
KARNATAKA
Filing No.: WP 19817/2022 Judge: SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Last Posted For: FURTHER Last Date of Action: Last Action Taken:
HEARING - 4 00 PM 13/04/2023 ADJOURNED
Next Hearing Date:
18/04/2023

Daily Orders: WP 20437/2022

1 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ 13/04/2023

list on 18.4.2023 at 4pm

2 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ 06/04/2023

1. Heard the rejoinder arguments of learned AGA.

2. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.24501/2022, re-
list on 13.04.2023 at 4.00 p.m.

3 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ 28/03/2023

1. Sri.Amruthesh, learned counsel for the impleading applicant in W.P.

No.20437/2022 submits that none of the requirements under Guideline (7) of
the Motor Vehicles Aggregators Guidelines, 2020 have been followed.
2. Earlier Sri.Nataraja Sharma, learned counsel has submitted that there were
various FIRs filed against the drivers by the passengers on account of differential
between the fare shown at the time of boarding and the at the time of alighting.
3. Submission is being made that if there is breakdown of the vehicle, no
amount is credited to the driver even if the vehicle had plied for sufficiently long
distance.
4. A serious allegation is made that whenever a driver wants to shift from one
aggregator to another, ‘No Objection’ is not issued and the driver and the vehicle
is blacklisted, thereby disentitling the driver, as also the vehicle to be on
boarded to another aggregator.
5. Learned HCGP, as also counsel for the petitioners are directed to make their
submission in regard to the above.
6. Learned HCGP submits that learned Advocate General would address
arguments in these matters on 3.04.2023.
Relist on 3.04.2023 at 4.00 p.m.

4 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ 24/03/2023

1. Heard Sri.Nataraj Sharma, counsel for the intervener.

2. Re-list on 28.03.2023 at 4.00 p.m.

https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/hckweb/casemenu.php 1/10
7/5/23, 3:01 PM High Court of Karnataka Official Web Site

5 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ 21/03/2023

1. Today the matter cannot be taken up. Hence, re-list on 24.03.2023 at 4.00
p.m.

6 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ 17/03/2023

1. Heard the learned Advocate General for the State.

2. For arguments of the interveners, re-list on 21.03.2023 at 4.00 p.m.

7 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ 09/03/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.24486/2022 has filed an affidavit

on behalf of the petitioner. Copy has been served on the learned HCGP.
2. Though affidavit is not been filed by the petitioner in WP No.24501/2022, copy
of the unsigned affidavit has been served on the learned HCGP.
3. Learned Advocate General submits that he would have to go through the said
affidavit and then make his submission.
4. Re-list on 17.03.2023 at 2.30 P.M.

8 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ 28/02/2023

ORDER IN WP NO.24486/2022
1. Heard Dr.Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
2. A memo dated 28.02.2023 containing note on benefits and value-added
services provided by the petitioner/OLA as an aggregator is filed and the same is
taken on record.
3. A memo dated 28.02.2023 enclosing acknowledgment of three
representations submitted by the petitioner to the Commissioner for Transport
and Road Safety is filed and the same are taken on record.
4. A memo dated 28.02.2023 along with citations is filed and the same is taken
on record.
ORDER IN WP NO.24501/2022
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo containing
acknowledgment. The same is taken on record.
6. For arguments of learned Advocate General, re-list on 09.03.2023 at 2.30 p.m.

9 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ 22/02/2023

https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/hckweb/casemenu.php 2/10
7/5/23, 3:01 PM High Court of Karnataka Official Web Site

1. In WP No.20349/2022, WP No.20437/2022 and WP No.20460/2022, after

arguing the matter for sometime, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also
learned HCGP submit that the lis as regards whether there is a requirement of a
licence for an online aggregator platform for the purpose of four wheelers is
pending before the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.4789-4892/2016 and
WA No.4787-4788/2016.
2. The contention of Sri. K.G. Raghavan., learned senior counsel is that the very
same license for a four wheeler would be sufficient for any motor cab including
three wheelers and as such the lis relating to requirement of a licence for a four
wheeler would subsume within itself the requirement of a licence
for a three wheeler. In view thereof, Sri. K.G.Raghavan., learned senior counsel,
Sri.Adithya Sondi., learned senior counsel, Ms. Jyothi Bhat., learned HCGP submit
that the consideration of these writ petitions may be deferred until the
judgment of the Division Bench in WA No.4789-4892/2016 and WA No.4787-
4788/2016.
3. Hence, these matters are de-linked and adjourned sine diepending the
disposal of the aforesaid writ appeals. Liberty is reserved to the counsel for the
petitioners as also counsel for the respondents to mention the matter for being
taken up after the disposal of the above writ appeals.
4. Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to issue necessary instructions to post the
matter after the disposal of the writ appeals alongwith a copy of the judgment in
the said writ appeal.
5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed opinion as regards the
requirements or not of any licence either for four wheelers or for three
wheelers, the same shall be subject to the result of the writ appeals pending
before the Division Bench.
6. Interim order passed in the earlier matter is extended subject to the result in
WP No.24486/2022 and WP No.24501/2022.
7. Heard Sri.K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.No.24501/2022.
8. For the arguments of Sri.Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior counsel in W.P.No.
24486/2022.
Relist on 28.02.2023 at 2.30 p.m.

10 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ 08/02/2023

Heard Sri.K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in part.

Relist on 22.02.2023 at 2.30 p.m, for further hearing.
Interim order earlier granted is extended till next date of hearing.

11 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ 01/02/2023

1. The learned counsels for the petitioner submits that they have filed their
respective written submissions.
2. Learned HCGP seeks for three days to file written submissions.
3. Written submission to be filed on or before 06.02.2023 after serving a copy on
all the other counsels.
4. Re-list on 08.02.2023 at 2.30 p.m.
5. In the meanwhile, compliance with the office objections to be made.
6. Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of hearing.

12 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ 18/01/2023

https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/hckweb/casemenu.php 3/10
7/5/23, 3:01 PM High Court of Karnataka Official Web Site

In W.P.No.20437/2022:
ON I.A.No.1/2022
I.A.No.1/2022 has been filed for enhancement of the fare fixed by this Court.
Since, the above matter is being taken up for final hearing, I am of the opinion
that the said application could also be taken up along with final hearing. Hence,
the consideration of the application is deferred.

ORDER ON I.A.No.4/2022
1. The present application has been filed by Bharath Transport Association
Group, claiming to be an organization formed for the welfare of taxi and auto
drivers and seeks to implead itself party respondent.
2. Sri. Amruthesh N.P., learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicants
submits that the interests of the impleading applicants and their members could
be adversely affected by any orders that could be passed in the present matter
and the action impugned against the petitioner is based on one of the
complaints submitted by the impleading applicants.
3. The above matter is being a private interest litigation and not a public interest
litigation, though the impleading applicant may be adversely affected, it cannot
be said that it is a proper and necessary party. However, taking into account, the
scope of the above matter and the effect of the order that could be passed, I am
of the considered opinion that the impleading applicant should be permitted to
assist this Court as an intervener. As such, I.A.No.4/2022 is partly allowed.
4. The impleading applicant is permitted to assist this Court as an intervener.
ON I.A.No.5/2022
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP confirm the receipt of
I.A.No.5/2022. Hence, office objection does not survive for consideration.
2. I.A.No.5/2022 has been filed by a Jago Karnataka Youth and Women's Welfare
Society seeking for impleadment in the present matter. It is contended that said
society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 with the main
object of promoting and safeguarding the interest of the women and other
weaker section of the society and that the Society also offers to help the
aspirants of auto rickshaw permits to get permits and that in the event of any
order being passed in the present matter, the interest of the members of the
Society will suffer great injury. I am of the considered opinion that the
impleading applicant can only at the most is said to be remotely connected with
the matter and there is no interest of the impleading applicant or its members
with the said impleading applicant when espouse in the present matter. As such,
I.A.No.5/2022 stands dismissed.
ON I.A.No.6/2022

I.A.No.6/2022 has been filed by one Mr. Sai Datta seeking for impleadment in the
above matter on the ground that he is a public spirited individual and an RTI
Activist and therefore, he has the grievance against the petitioner and similarly
situated operators who according to him are charging indiscriminately at the
whims and fancies. As such, he wishes to oppose the petition filed by the
petitioner. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that merely because
someone is RTI activist and public spirited individual such a person cannot be
permitted to come on record in a private interest litigation though it may have it
may have some public implication. Hence, I.A.No.6/2022 stands dismissed.

13 B.M.SHYAM PRASAD 11/01/2023

Adjourned to be called on 18.01.2023.

The interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of hearing.

14 C.M. POONACHA 12/12/2022

Call after two weeks.

Interim order, if any, granted earlier is extended till the next date of hearing.
Liberty is reserved to the impleading applicants to move the Vacation Court.

15 S.G.PANDIT 28/11/2022

https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/hckweb/casemenu.php 4/10
7/5/23, 3:01 PM High Court of Karnataka Official Web Site

List after two weeks.

Wherever, interim order is in existence, the same stands extended till the next
date of hearing.

16 C.M. POONACHA 21/11/2022

ORDER
Heard the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners in all the
petitions and the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent -
State.
Learned Advocate General submits that meeting by the State Government of the
stakeholders to consider their views have progressed substantially and the
decision in that regard is likely to arrived by 25.11.2022.
In view of the said submission, consideration of interlocutory application for
modification of the interim order is deferred till the next date of hearing.
Interim order granted earlier stands extended till the next date of hearing.
Call on 28.11.2022.

17 C.M. POONACHA 16/11/2022

Learned HCGP submits that statement of objections to I.A.No.8/2022 in

W.P.No.20349/2022, I.A.No.1/2022 in W.P.No.20437/2022 and I.A.No.2/2022 in
W.P.No.20460/2022 will be filed and hence, seeks for a short accommodation.
Call on 21.11.2022 to hear on I.A.No.8/2022 in W.P.No.20349/2022, I.A.No.1/2022
in W.P.No.20437/2022 and I.A.No.2/2022 in W.P.No.20460/2022.
Interim order, if any, granted earlier is extended till next of hearing.

18 C.M. POONACHA 07/11/2022

Learned HCGP seeks for short accommodation to file objections to IA No.1/2022.

Statement of objections to be filed within five days after serving an advance
copy to the learned counsel for petitioner.
Call on 16.11.2022 to hear on IA. No.1/2022.
Interim order, if any, granted earlier is extended till next date of hearing.

19 M.G.S. KAMAL 14/10/2022

https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/hckweb/casemenu.php 5/10
7/5/23, 3:01 PM High Court of Karnataka Official Web Site

ORDER
Issue raised in these writ petitions being common, they are taken up for
analogous consideration.
2. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for the respondents in all the matters.
3. Heard Sri Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
in W.P.No.20349/2022,
Sri C.K.Nandakumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in
W.P.No.20347/2022 and Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.20460/2022 and Sri Prabhuling K.Navdgi,
learned Advocate General for the State.
4. The respondents- State Government issued a notice dated 06.10.2022 to the
petitioners calling upon them to shutdown/stop the autorickshaw services under
aggregator services with immediate effect and further directed not to
receive/collect fare higher than the fare fixed by the Government, on the
premise that Auto-rickshaw do not come within the meaning of 'taxi' as provided
under the Karnataka On-Demand Transport Technology Aggregator Regulations,
2016 (herein after Regulations, 2016) and that the fare fixed and collected by
them was higher than the fare fixed by the Government. Further petitioners
were given three days time to respond to the said notice.
5. Reply to the said notice was issued by the respective petitioners. In response
thereof a meeting was convened on 11.10.2022 in the Office of the Commission
of Transport and Road Safety- the respondent No.2 herein to discuss the
following issues:
(i) Auto-rickshaws are not included in the aggregators license;

(ii) Fixation of fare in respect of auto-rickshaw and motor cabs; &

(iii) Any other subject as suggested by the Commissioner.

6. On 11.10.2022, the respondent No.2 issued a communication, wherein

referring to the aforesaid notice and meeting, directed the petitioners to stop
the operation of the Auto-rickshaw cabs immediately on their App. It is these
developments which have given rise to filing of the present writ petitions.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners respectively contended
that:
(i) The action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notice and order is
illegal and arbitrary as the same is against principles of natural justice;
(ii) The impugned order is bereft of any reasoning, in that, the basic premise on
which it has been issued namely, that the Auto-rickshaw do not fall within
definition of ‘taxi’ is erroneous;
(iii) That the allegation of aggregators providing services at the rate higher than
the rate fixed by the Government is fallacious.
Buttressing the aforesaid points, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the
judgment of this Court passed in the case of Veeramani v. the Regional
Transport Authority reported in ILR 1980 KAR 1112. Wherein paragraph No.4 of
the said judgment reads as under:
“4. The definition of "contract carriage" as found in sub-see. (3) of S. 2 of the Act,
reads as follows:
"Contract carriage" means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or
passengers for hire or reward under a contract expressed or implied for the use
of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum-
(i) on a time basis whether or not with reference to any route or distance, or
(ii) from one point to another, and in either case without stopping to Pick up or
set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract; and
includes a motor cab notwithstanding that the passengers may pay separate
fares;"
(emphasis is supplied).
Thus, from the aforesaid definition of 'contract carriage' it is clear that it includes
a motor cab. Sub-section (15) of Section 2 of the Act, defines 'motor cab' as
follows:
"motor cab" means any motor vehicle constructed, adapted or used to carry riot
more than six passengers excluding the driver, for hire or reward;"
From the aforesaid definition of 'motor cab it is clear that an autorickshaw falls
within the definition of "motor cab", inasmuch as in the autorickshaw less than
six passengers excluding the driver are carried either for hire or reward. The
Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 excludes the motor cab
from the definition of contract carriages for the purpose of that Act as per
Section 3(9) of that Act. Thus, it is clear that even after the coming into force of
https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/hckweb/casemenu.php 6/10
7/5/23, 3:01 PM High Court of Karnataka Official Web Site

the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, one can have the
permit for running a motor cab, which falls within the category of contract
carriage. Therefore, it is necessary to find out whether the reservation made in
the impugned resolution of the R.T.A. in respect of the permits falling in the
category of contract carriage permits is supported by any of the provisions
contained in the Act, as it stood either on the date of the resolution or after the
coming into force of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Central
Centra Act, 47
of 1978).”

8. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment learned Senior Counsel submitted that
the issue whether the Auto-rickshaw falls within the definition of 'motor cab' or
not is no longer res-interga and that the respondents without referring to this
settled position of law have issued notice and have passed the order which per
se not sustainable.
9. As regards the fare is concerned, learned Senior Counsel submit in unison
that presently there is no provision of law, rule or regulation holding the field.
However, the charges being levied and collected by the aggregators for their
services are just and proper. Besides, they are also paying applicable taxes to
the appropriate Authorities/Departments.
10. One other submission being made is with regard to the proceedings in
W.A.No.4789/2016 with connected matters which are now pending
consideration, wherein the question of constitutionality of the Regulations, 2016
is under consideration. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Writ
Appeals has passed an interim order in an by which the respondents have been
directed not to take coercive measures. Learned Senior Counsel specifically
pointed out to the order dated 13.12.2016 which reads as follows:
“While transcribing the orders, there are certain mistakes.
The direction recorded in these writ appeals that during the pendency of these
matters, the appellants shall obtain license from the authorities subject to the
result of the writ appeals, was not necessary.
Therefore we delete this portion of the order from the order sheet of these writ
appeals”

11. Thus it is submitted that in view of the aforesaid interim order, the
respondents can neither insist not contend that the aggregators are not entitled
to ply without obtaining the licenses nor do they can take any coercive action,
pursuant to the order impugned in these writ petitions. Lest, it is submitted that
the same would amount to contempt of Court.
12. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned Advocate General
submits;
(i) particularly referring to the interim order passed in the aforesaid writ appeals,
that the said interim order cannot be read and understood to mean that, the
requirement of obtaining license is completely exempted;
(ii) He submits that the present notice and the order impugned in these petitions
necessitated on account of the public grievance which the State has received;
(iii) That admittedly most of the aggregators are operating without licenses and
these activities cannot be countenanced under any circumstances;
(iv) That the fare being charged by the petitioners/aggregators is high and in
excess to the fare fixed by the State Government in terms of the notification
dated 06.11.2021 which was issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 67 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘M.V.Act’ for short). He submits that the said fare
fixed by the State should be the base for the petitioners/aggregators to operate
their services.
13. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned
Advocate General, this Court had suggested that if consensus could be arrived at
in fixing the fare as the interest of the public at large is involved in the matter.
Accordingly, it is reported that a meeting was indeed convened in which though
no conclusion was arrived at, it is submitted, that the State is open to come out
with fare fixation pursuant to Section 67 of the M.V.Act particularly with regard
to Auto-rickshaws plying on the platform provided by the aggregators within a
period of ten to twelve days. It is further submitted that till such time, the
petitioners/aggregators will have to abide by the fares already notified by the
State in terms of the notification dated 06.11.2021.
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submit that, that would cause
huge financial loss to the petitioners, as the services being provided by them
involves huge costs on various heads which may eventually lead to closing down
of their businesses.
15. Heard learned Senior Counsel and learned Advocate General for the parties
https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/hckweb/casemenu.php 7/10
7/5/23, 3:01 PM High Court of Karnataka Official Web Site

and perused the records.

16. Section 93 of the MV Act has been amended with insertion of ‘providing
license to the aggregators’ which is extracted here under for immediate perusal.
“93. Agent or canvasser or aggregator to obtain licence.— (1) No person shall
engage himself—
(i) as an agent or a canvasser, in the sale of tickets for travel by public service
vehicles or in otherwise soliciting custom for such vehicles, or
(ii) as an agent in the business of collecting, forwarding or distributing goods
carried by goods carriages,
(iii) as an aggregator,
unless he has obtained a licence from such authority and subject to such
conditions as may be prescribed by the State Government.
[Provided that while issuing the licence to an aggregator the State Government
may follow such guidelines as may be issued by the Central
Centra Government:
Provided further that every aggregator shall comply with the provisions of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) and the rules and regulations
made thereunder.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) may include all or any of the
following matters, namely:—
(a) the period for which a licence may be granted or renewed;
(b) the fee payable for the issue or renewal of the licence;
(c) the deposit of security—
(i) of a sum not exceeding rupees fifty thousand in the case of an agent in the
business of collecting, forwarding or distributing goods carried by goods
carriages;
(ii) of a sum not exceeding rupees five thousand in the case of any other agent
or canvasser,
and the circumstances under which the security may be forfeited;
(d) the provisions by the agent of insurance of goods in transit;
(e) the authority by which and the circumstances under which the licence may be
suspended or revoked;
(f) such other conditions as may be prescribed by the State Government.
(3) It shall be a condition of every licence that no agent or canvasser to whom
the licence is granted shall advertise in any newspaper, book, list, classified
directory or other publication unless there is contained in such advertisement
appearing in such newspaper, book, list, classified directory or other publication
the licence number, the date of expiry of licence and the particulars of the
authority which granted the licence.

17. In terms of Proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 93, as noted above the State
Government may follow such Guidelines as and when issued by the Centra Central
Government. The Centra
Central Government has already issued guidelines called 'the
Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2020'. The said Guidelines take into
consideration Auto-rickshaws as well. Guideline No.13 under the heading
“Regulation of fare” provides as under:
“13. Regulation of fares:

(1) The city taxi fare indexed by WPI for the current year shall be the base fare
chargeable to customers availing Aggregator service.

(2) The base minimum fare chargeable to customers availing Aggregator services
shall be, for a minimum of 3 kilometers to compensate for dead mileage and
distance travelled and fuel utilized for picking up the customers.

(3) The Aggregator shall be permitted to charge a fare 50% tower than the base
fare and a maximum Surge pricing of 1 .5 times the base fare specified under
Clause 13(1) hereinabove. This will enable and promote asset utilization which
has been the fundamental concept of transport aggregation and also
substantiate the dynamic pricing principle, which is pertinent in ensuring asset
utilization in accordance with the market forces of demand and supply.

(4) The Driver of a vehicle integrated with the Aggregator shall receive at least
80% of the fare applicable on each ride and the remaining charges for each ride
shall be received by the Aggregator. The State Government may by way of a
notification direct 2% over and above the fare towards the state exchequer for
amenities and programmes related for Aggregator operated vehicles, which
have been helpful in reducing traffic congestion to a great extent and
subsequently reducing pollution. These amenities and programmes may include
https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/hckweb/casemenu.php 8/10
7/5/23, 3:01 PM High Court of Karnataka Official Web Site

but not be limited to, state sponsored driver welfare programmes, road safety
awareness workshops and activities, pollution control programmes, allotment of
parking spaces in certain proportion of large parking areas for vehicles
integrated with an Aggregator, electric charging infrastructure for electric
vehicles and related matters.

(5) ln states where the city taxi fare has not been determined by the State
Government, an amount of Rs. 25l30 shall be the base fare for the purposes of
fare regulation under this Clause '12. Similar fare fixation shall be done by the
State Government of other vehicles integrated by Aggregators within the
relevant State.

(6) For the purposes of motor cabs, fare regulation under this Clause .12 shall
only be applicable for motor cabs not exceeding 4 meters of length of below
engine capacity of 1500cc diesel or petrol. Fare regulation provided under this
Clause 12 shall not be applicable to electric vehicles.

(7) No passenger shall be charged for dead mileage (except when the distance
for availing the ride is less than 3 kms as mentioned under Clause 13(Z)
hereinabove) and the fare shall be charged only from the point of boarding to
point of alighting.

18. As pointed out by learned Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Form No.III
[See Clause 3(5)] providing for license for an aggregator, at item No.5 thereof
refers to Auto-rickshaw/e-rickshaw/motor cab/motorcycle or bus. Therefore the
aforesaid Guidelines have taken into consideration the nature of vehicles
including Autorickshaws as well.
19. However, in view of the submission made by learned Advocate General, that
the State Government is open and willing to formulate fare fixation, this Court is
of the view that the Guidelines referred to above will also be adhered to during
the process of fare fixation. However since the said process would take a period
of ten to fifteen days as submitted, in the interregnum, considering the
submissions made by the petitioners as well as the learned Advocate General,
this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners/aggregators be put on
terms.
20. In terms of notification dated 06.11.2021 issued by the Regional Transport
Authority, Bengaluru urban district, Bengaluru Autorickshaw meter fare has
been revised in the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike with effect
from 01.12.2021 which are as under:
1) Minimum Fare for First 2.00 KMs Fare - Rs.30/- (Rs.Thirty Only Three
Passengers
2) Subsequent Each Kilometre Fare - Rs.15/- (Rs.Fifteen only Three Passengers)
3) Waiting Fare
a) First Five Minutes
b) Subsequent of first Five Minutes
For each Fifteen Minutes or part thereof -

-
Free

Rs.5/-
4) Passengers Luggage Fare
a) For first 20 K.G.
b) Subsequently from first 20 KG for each 20 KG or part thereof
c) Maximum Passengers
Luggages for 50 KG -
Free

Rs.5/-
5) Night Time Fare - Normal Fare+Half Times more of Normal Fare
(From night 10-00 upto Early Morning 5-00 o'clock)

https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/hckweb/casemenu.php 9/10
7/5/23, 3:01 PM High Court of Karnataka Official Web Site

21. The petitioners/aggregators shall follow the fare fixed by the State as per the
notification dated 06.11.2021 extracted herein above with an addition of 10%
and applicable service taxes towards the services rendered by them. This would
meet the ends of justice till the State Government fixes the fare within a period
of fifteen days as mentioned.
22. The present arrangement is made with the consensus of the parties in the
matter for the time being in view of the representation being made by the State.
23. All the contentions to be urged by the parties are left open to be considered
in the main petitions. In view of the above, the respondents or their
representatives shall not take any coercive action till next date of hearing.
24. This Court is given to an assurance by learned Advocate General that all the
stake holders in the matter, including the concerns of the General Public, will be
given an opportunity of being heard with a prior intimation of the date to be
fixed in this regard.
25. The petitioners/aggregators are at liberty to seek issuance and or renewal of
the license in accordance with law in the meanwhile.
26. The petitioner in W.P.No.20460/2022 shall comply with the office objections.
27. Petitioners to file objections if any to the impleading applications by the next
date of hearing.
List all the matters on 07.11.2022.

20 M.G.S. KAMAL 13/10/2022

List this matter along with WP.No.20349/2022 on 14.10.2022.

https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/hckweb/casemenu.php 10/10