The Maharashtra Government on Tuesday filed an affidavit in the Bombay High Court, opposing the petitions of drivers of app-based cabs and of Uber India, challenging the Maharashtra City Taxi rules. The affidavit says "Framing of rules is being opposed to ensure they are not regulated and that they get an unfettered playing field to further their monetary benefits and exploit the commuters at large."
The affidavit of Purshottam Nikam, Regional Transport Commissioner (Eastern), filed through Advocate GW Mattos, relies on various complaints of harassment faced by commuters and complaints of overcharging, by app-based cabs and also the recent ban imposed by the Transport for London Authority on Uber from plying, as an example to show the need for regulating these services.
The affidavit was filed before a bench of Justice Shantanu Kemkar and Justice GS Kulkarni, which is hearing a bunch of petitions. Mattos submitted that the fare fixation committee had submitted its report to the government on Monday, which is yet to be accepted. Until then, he assured the court that no coercive action would be taken against the app-based cabs. The court has now posted further hearing of the petitions to November 21.
Pressing the need for regulation, the affidavit said "It was necessary to bring the app-based cabs under regulations to foil their "predatory", "monopolistic" and "exploitative" business tactics. They have predatory tactics; they aspire for a monopoly in the market and want to wipe out competition, including the common man who drives the yellow and black taxi. Such tactics cannot be permitted by a welfare state like Maharashtra.
Petitions have claimed that new rules, if implemented, won't allow them to ply in Mumbai Metropolitan region. To which the government has said, "Ola and Uber have been flouting the Regional Transport Authority's rules on licensing until now by plying intra-city cabs as hail taxis on tourist vehicle permits. Once the rules are framed, they will have to obtain a license from the Licensing Authority, without which they would not be permitted to function within the regions in which they are specifically prohibited from operating under the guise of the permits issued to them.
It has also said, "State has made it optional for the petitioners to either opt for plying their vehicles under the Impugned Rules or to continue to ply the vehicles with the existing permits as tourist vehicles inasmuch as the permits are issued to them under Section 88(9) of the said Act for the said purpose and not to ply as hail taxis or Contract Carriage under Section 74 of the said Act within the designated areas or the geographical limits as mentioned in the permits issued.
In regard to surge pricing, the affidavit says that all hail cabs must also have a metered fare structure and hence, the petitioners' surge price fare structure is not only exploitative, but also illegal.
