The AAP government today told the Delhi High Court that Uber, Ola, other aggregators of taxis or any operator, ought to be regulated in law to ensure security and safety of the users.
The submission was made before a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath, which is hearing Uber's plea that Delhi government be restrained from interfering with its business.
The AAP government, however, said that Uber's plea is "not maintainable as they have not approached this court with clean hands and are not entitled to any discretionary remedy for they are running their business illegally and are blatantly flouting the ban order dated January 1, 2015 passed by them and upheld by this court".
The AAP government in its affidavit filed through advocate Prabhsahay Kaur also said that on December 5, 2014 a female passenger was raped by the driver of a car which was booked through the petitioner Uber platform.
"The accused driver of the car has now been convicted by the trial court for rape. The said driver of Uber was known to be a habitual offender and was earlier accused for molestation and robbery.
"These facts vindicate the stand of answering respondent (Delhi government) that Uber do not apply a proper screening process for selection of drivers which eventually led in the culmination of such an unfortunate and dastardly incident, which could have been avoided had the petitioners applied for a license under the prescribed procedure," the affidavit said.
"The petitioners as well as other aggregator of taxis, and as a matter of fact any taxi operator, ought to be regulated in law to ensure the security and safety of the users of such platforms," it added.
Government was responding to a court notice issued to them on October 13 last year seeking their replies on the petition of Uber, which runs an app-based taxi service in the national capital by using All India Tourist Permit (AITP) cabs running on diesel.
Uber BV, the parent company based in Netherlands, as well
as its two Indian arms--Uber India Technology Pvt Ltd and Uber India Systems Pvt Ltd--have in their petition also challenged rejection of their application for licence to ply in the city.
Uber had applied under the modified Radio Taxi Scheme, but the government rejected their application on September 1, 2015, saying they have to apply under the new City Taxi Scheme, its petition has said.
The company, in its plea, has challenged the new scheme of Delhi government as well as the September 1, 2015 order and sought directions to the city government to issue them a licence to ply.
Defending their stand, the AAP government said on December 16 last, the apex court had in its order directed that all taxis including those operating under aggregators like Ola and Uber in Delhi, plying under city permits shall move to CNG not later than March 1.
"The petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of issue estoppel and because the petitioners are indulging in forum shopping," the affidavit added.
It further said the challenge of Uber to City Taxi Scheme, 2015 is completely misplaced as the scheme has been specifically drafted to bring in aggregator of taxis within its ambit.
"The concern of companies such as the petitioners that being aggregators of taxis they are not the vehicle owners, has been suitably addressed in the 2015 Scheme and no such requirement of ownership of vehicles has been imposed on the aggregators.
"For the petitioners and other similarly placed companies to now refuse to come in the realm of the scheme, only in a bid to prevent their costs from being increased, is absolutely unacceptable. The fact of the matter is that the petitioners wish to operate in an unregulated sector and do not want any regulation whatsoever to apply to them, which cannot be permitted or sanctioned," it added.
The government affidavit also stated that the petitioners be "directed to immediately apply and obtain a license under the City Taxi Scheme 2015, and in the meantime discontinue all their operations in NCR".
(Reopens LGD40)
The Delhi government in its affidavit also brushes aside Uber's claim that new scheme was ultra vires to the Constitution as the government did not have the jurisdiction to regulate cabs and only the Centre could legislate on the issue.
"It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner's petty attempt is to create an impression that the state government is trampling over the powers of the central government whereas this is not the case at all and all the applicable Rules and Laws are all operating in tandem with each other... Under the provisions (of the scheme), the state government is authorized to make Rules for the purpose of these sections," Delhi government said.
Uber has contended that the new scheme is "targeted" at companies like it as it requires them to share their location, whereas radio taxis do not have to.
Under the new scheme, the definition of 'clean fuel' is limited to CNG and LPG and Uber has contended that such a restriction is "unreasonable".
The scheme also caps the number of taxis per licence at 2500 apart from making it mandatory that cabs operated by app-based companies to obtain a contract carriage permit as well as have public service vehicle badges, all of which according to Uber are also "unreasonable restrictions".
Uber has also opposed various other requirements, like providing a printed bill, displaying name of licensee (Uber or Ola) and displaying in the cab the details of the driver, stipulated under the 2015 scheme.
On July 29 last year, the high court had upheld Delhi government's January 1, 2015 order by which all app-based cab services which did not conform to the Radio Taxi Scheme 2006 were banned from operating in the city.
ANI Technologies, which provides app-based taxi services in the city, had challenged the July 29, 2015 order of a single judge before a division bench.
On August 11 last year, the high court had dismissed Ola's appeal against the single judge's order saying the company was "factually incorrect" to contend non-CNG commercial vehicles, like diesel cabs, were not barred from plying in the national capital.
