The Rapido Bike Taxi service suspended its operations in Mumbai and Pune till January 20 on Friday, within an hour after the Bombay High Court warned the service provider that it would restrain their licence permanently and impose heavy costs.
The counsel for Rapido Bike Taxi told a HC Bench of Justices GS Patel and SG Dige, that his client would suspend all the services till January 20 and would disable the app meant for booking vehicles for services throughout Maharashtra. Consequently, Rapido suspended its operations in Mumbai and Pune from 1 PM on Friday.
Earlier, handing out a stern warning to the a bike taxi aggregator company that it would not be allowed to operate without licence, the HC bench also said that if the company did not suspend its operations immediately, it would issue directions to the authorities to permanently prohibit the company from getting any license
"You thought there were guidelines, and we can run our services without a license. In other words, Mr. Judge please protect our illegality under Article 226. Guess what? We will not. Dr. Saraf's entire team is here. They will be watching over you like hawks. If you make one mistake, we will dismiss this petition. We will ensure that you are restrained from getting a license permanently, and we will impose costs while dismissing this petition," the HC bench observed.
The HC bench was hearing a petition filed by Rapido, challenging the State government’s refusal to grant two-wheeler bike taxi aggregator license.
The HC bench issued a directive to Rapido in the context of the fact that there was currently licencing system in place with respect to bike tasis.
In a letter written to Rapido on December 29, 2022, the Maharashtra government had refused to grant licence to the company on the ground that there is no State policy on licensing of bike taxis and that there is no fare structure policy for bike taxis.
On its part, the HC bench had on January 2 asked the state government to consider the benefits of having two-wheeler transport and opined that there is nothing to stop the State from framing a policy. The court had later adjourned the matter to January 10.