How are you operating despite the ban, Delhi HC asks Ola
Delhi High Court on Tuesday questioned how app-based taxi service, Ola, was operating in the national capital when the city government's order banning them ahas not been stayed and warned that it would shut the company down if it thought it was above law.
New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Tuesday questioned how app-based taxi service, Ola, was operating in the national capital when the city government's order banning them ahas not been stayed and warned that it would shut the company down if it thought it was above law.
"How are you operating post January 1 order? There has been no stay. Why is the ban not being implemented," Justice Manmohan asked the counsel for ANI Technologies Pvt Ltd which operates app-based cab services under the name of Ola.
On January 1, Delhi government had banned the operation of app-based taxi services till they comply with the guidelines of Radio Taxi Scheme of 2006 which was recently amended.
The court, however, said it will pass interim orders tomorrow when it might also put in place a temporary mechanism for running of the company, while it continues to hear the matter.
It said the matter needs to be heard as "it seems at first blush that the rules of the policy are not in tune with ground level reality".
The court, during arguments, observed that it cannot remain a "bystander" while the company "pollutes the city" as its taxis operate on diesel which is not a clean fuel.
Justice Manmohan also observed that the company was taking an "extreme stand" that it was "not amenable to any condition", instead of taking a balanced view and warned that he will shut them down if they take this "strident position" and do not follow the law.
"If you are going to take this strident position, not follow the law..., I will completely shut you down. I will enforce the January 1 order," he said.
The judge also observed that the company was acting as if it was above the law and said if needed he will "bring them down to Mother Earth".
The company earned the court's displeasure after it changed lawyers and had sought time for taking instructions after addressing extensive arguments, and sought more time today.