Let market forces decide cab pricing, Delhi HC tells government

New Delhi: The Delhi high court observed that the government should have minimum interference in the policy framework to regulate the Ola and Uber radio taxi services providers. The court said that market forces should be allowed to operate as the government  regulation could “bring in corruption”. The court also pulled the cab provider services that business rivalries should not be settled in court. Both Ola and Uber had filed pleas against each other citing violations of norms.

The high court said that any regulatory mechanism that is set up ought to remain in the periphery as it has been seen in the past, that regulations too “bring in corruption,” even as it termed the current public transport system as “primitive.”

Stressing that the regulations should encourage everyone to go for a futuristic scheme providing for use of “clean fuel and cleaner public transport”, Justice Manmohan asked the Delhi government to consider the policy drafted by a court-appointed panel and come back with its stand by the next date of hearing on February 6.

The court told the government that “the policy will aid in finding a solution, so look at it with an open mind.”

It made the observations after taking on record an expert panel’s suggestions which was placed before it by the Centre’s standing counsels Manish Mohan and Kirtiman Singh.

The lawyers for the Central government said that if the suggestions were acceptable to all, then the state governments would be asked to make a scheme under the policy for regulation of taxis, including app-based cab aggregators.

The Delhi government, represented by its senior standing counsel Rahul Mehra, said it would not follow the policy “blindly” as it would need to first look at it from the point of larger public interest. Mr Mehra also said that since app-based cab aggregator Ola has applied for registration, Uber too should do the same. However, Uber, represented by senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, said it will seek registration under the new policy as and when it comes into effect. It also objected to the panel’s recommendation to cap the minimum fare that can be charged by it. To this, the court remarked that it wanted the Centre and Delhi government to be on the same page and come out with a model scheme. The private parties could challenge it if they had any objections.

The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by radio taxi operators against the Delhi government for allowing Ola and Uber to operate without any licence, while the two companies filed contempt pleas against each other for alleged violation of court orders.

Noticing that law has not kept pace with changing technology, the court had set up an expert panel to formulate a uniform policy to regulate such companies.

Some of the 15 key recommendations by the panel include states facilitating unhindered grant of permits for city taxis and All India Tourist Permit (AITP) without any restriction on numbers, online conversion of compliant personal vehicles to commercial taxis on payment of requisite charges to facilitate use of idle assets, and no regulation
on tariff of deluxe taxis which should be determined by market dynamics.