Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi on Friday, January 23, allowed appeals by app-based taxi aggregators and motorcycle owners, set aside the earlier single-judge order, and directed the State to process applications for registering motorcycles as transport vehicles and granting contract-carriage permits, without rejecting them on the ground that motorcycles cannot operate as such. The dispute concerned the State’s refusal to permit bike-taxi operations and related aggregator permissions. Holding that carrying passengers for hire through bike taxis is a lawful trade protected by Article 19(1)(g), the Bench said a blanket prohibition is not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6).

The writ appeals challenged a common order dated April 2, 2025, passed by the learned Single Judge regarding the operation of bike taxi services in Karnataka. The appellants, comprising aggregators like Ola, Uber, and Rapido, along with individual motorcycle owners and associations, contended that the State authorities refused to grant contract carriage permits for motorcycles, thereby preventing them from operating bike taxis. They argued that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), specifically Sections 2(7), 2(25), and 2(28), motorcycles fall within the definition of "contract carriage" and "motor cab" . They relied on a Central Government notification dated November 5, 2004, and a subsequent clarification dated January 22, 2024, which explicitly recognized motorcycles used for hire as transport vehicles.

Also Read: Registry Cannot Make Inroads Into Judiciary’s Exclusive Domain By Seeking Reasons For Impleading A Respondent: Supreme Court

The appellants asserted that the right to ply bike taxis is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and can only be restricted by a valid law, not by executive inaction or an unwritten ban. The State contended that the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (CMV Rules), excluded two-wheelers from "carrying passengers" categories. The State further argued that under Section 67 of the MV Act, it held the power to control road transport and that no policy or rules existed to regulate non-electric bike taxis.

The Division Bench observed that “the definition of 'contract carriage', is an inclusive definition and not an exhaustive one”. The Court held that “a motorcycle could be used for hire to carry one passenger and one pillion, and the same would fall within the definition of contract carriage under Section 2 (7) of the MV Act”.

Regarding the classification of vehicles, the Bench observed that “the classification is merely made on account of the construction and modifications carried out in the vehicles” and that “the fact that the expression 'carrying passengers' is not used in the definition of category 'L2'… does not indicate that the motorcycle is not for carrying passengers”. The Court stated, “It is clear that the word "passenger" indicates whether a vehicle is designed to carry human passengers or goods”.

Addressing the State's restriction, the Court observed that "...it cannot be disputed that the business of plying taxis is a legitimate business, and the right to engage in such activity is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The said business is not inherently dangerous, illegal or immoral...However, engaging in such business maybe subject to reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India, which expressly provides that Article 19(1)(g) does not prevent the State from making any law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public...In our view, a blanket prohibition on issuing contract carriage permits to motorcycles cannot be considered as a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India for several reasons".

On the issue of State policy, the Court observed that “the power of the State Government to control road transport is circumscribed by Section 67 of the MV Act”. The Bench stated that “it is difficult to accept that Section 66(1) of the MV Act contains any power of the State Government to issue a blanket ban for use of a transport vehicle by refraining from issuing any permits at all”. The Court observed that “absent any set out policy and the considerations for the same, there are no grounds to assume that the same would constitute a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public”.

Regarding the Aggregators, the Court observed that “since a motorcycle would fall within the definition of a motor cab under Section 2(25) and consequently within the definition of a 'taxi' under Section 2(7) of the KODTTA Rules, a licence issued under the said Rules would also cover a bike taxi”. However, the Court also observed that “the contention that the Aggregators can aggregate bike taxi services notwithstanding that the specific bike taxis are not included in the list of taxis in respect of which the licence is granted, is not merited”.

Also Read: Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Due Diligence Test Not Mandatory In Every Post-Trial Plaint Amendment; Karnataka High Court

The Court directed that “the motorcycle owners are at liberty to file applications for registration of their vehicles as transport vehicles (yellow board)” and directed the State Government “to consider such applications for the registration of motorcycles as transport vehicles and for the grant of permits to operate them as contract carriages. Whilst the concerned authorities are not precluded from examining relevant aspects for vehicle registration and issuance of permits, the same will not be denied on the ground that motorcycles cannot be operated as transport vehicles or contract carriages”.

“The Regional Transport Authority may also impose such conditions as it considers necessary, as attached to the said permits, in accordance with law and having regard to the provisions of Section 74(2) of the MV Act”.

“The concerned authorities shall consider the pending applications of the aggregators and pass appropriate orders. The aggregators are also at liberty to file fresh applications for licences” and “in the event such applications are filed, they will be considered in accordance with law and the observations of this Court in this decision”.

“The impugned order is set aside, and the appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants:  Sri K. Arun Kumar, Senior Advocate; Sri Faisal Sherwani; Sri Aditya Vikram; Sri V. Srinivasan Raghavan, Senior Advocate; Ms. Anupama G. Hebbar; Mr. Sankeerth Vittal; Ms. Bhavana Menon; Ms. Dharshini S.; Mr. Abdul Hadin; Sri Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate; Sri Nishanth A.V.; Sri Shashank Garg, Senior Advocate; Sri Girish Kumar B.M.; Ms. Aradhya Chaturvedi; Sri Manoj Aradhya; Ms. Nishtha Jain; Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Senior Advocate; Sri Madhur A. Kalyanshetty .

For the Respondents:  Sri K. Shashikiran Shetty, Advocate General; Sri Mahesh A. Chowdhary, Spl. Counsel; Ms. Rashi Singh; Ms. Adoorya Harish; Sri Omkar Margad; Smt. Nayana Tara B.G.; Sri S. Nataraja Sharma; Sri N.P. Amruthesh; Ms. Deeksha N. Amruthesh; Smt. Saraswathy Prasad; Smt. Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate; Sri Umapathi S. .

Case Title: Ani Technologies Private Limited v. State of Karnataka and Others

Case Number: WA No. 906 of 2025 (C/W WA No. 848 of 2025, WA No. 863 of 2025, WA No. 948 of 2025, WA No. 962 of 2025)

Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice C M Joshi