LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 07 February 2023

Are the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 binding on a State Government issuing an aggregator licence?

Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
2023 INSC 102 · Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 3006 of 2023
Coram: Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; J B Pardiwala
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.93 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. Under the first proviso to Section 93(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 the State Government "may follow" such guidelines as may be issued by the Central Government. The Guidelines which have been issued by the Central Government have a persuasive value; they are not mandatory. When the State Government formulates rules in pursuance of its power under Section 96 it may also bear the Guidelines in mind, but the ultimate decision is to be arrived at by the State Government, both on whether to grant a licence and on the formulation of rules.

Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.93 — s.96 — Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2020 — cl.15 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Art.32 — Art.226 — Aggregator licence — Bike taxi — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.93 — Central guidelines persuasive, not mandatory — Held: The first proviso to Section 93(1) says the State Government "may follow" the guidelines issued by the Central Government. The Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 therefore have persuasive value and are not mandatory, the ultimate decision on a licence resting with the State Government. (¶9) Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2020 — cl.15 — Written rationale for prohibition — Held further: Under clause 15(1) the pooling of non-transport vehicles may be provided by the aggregator unless prohibited by the State Government. The rationale for such a prohibition has to be specified in writing and accessible on its transport portal. (¶8) Constitution of India, 1950 — Art.32 — Art.226 — Alternate remedy — Liberty to challenge notification — Held further: A challenge to a notification never raised before the High Court will not be entertained under Article 32 where the alternate remedy under Article 226 is available. Liberty was granted to move the High Court uninfluenced by the impugned observations; petitions disposed of. (¶17, 20)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 9Government of Maharashtra has not formulated any rules in relation to aggregators for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of Chapter V, more particularly, Section 93(1). The first proviso to Section 93 stipulates that while issuing a licence to an aggregator, the State Government may follow such guidelines as may be issued by the Central Government. The Guidelines which have been issued by the Central Government have a persuasive value. They are not mandatory. When the State Government formulates rules in pursuance of its power under Section 96, it may also bear in mind the Guidelines which have been framed by the Union Government in 2020. Both in terms of the first proviso to Section 93(1) and the plain terms of the Guidelines, it is evident that while these Guidelines have to be borne in mind, the ultimate decision is to be arrived at by the State Government while considering whether to grant a licence and in regard to the formulation of rules in pursuance of the general rule making power under Section 96.
Acts & Sections
s.93 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s.96 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s.2(1A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Art. 32 Constitution of India, 1950Art. 226 Constitution of India, 1950

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Must a State Government give written reasons before prohibiting pooling of non-transport vehicles by aggregators?Will the Supreme Court entertain an Article 32 challenge to a State notification not challenged before the High Court?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections