Telangana HC Issues Notice On Plea To Regulate Taxi Fares In Telangana
Senior counsel L. Ravi Chander submitted that although the pleas were in public interest, the petition was filed as a regular writ petition since the association of gig workers has a direct interest in the matter, and therefore, a PIL may not be maintainable.
Hyderabad: Justice K. Sarath of the Telangana High Court on Thursday ordered notice in a writ petition seeking norms for the the regulation of taxi fares. The petition was filed by the Telangana Gig and Platform Workers Union (TGPWU), which complained that state authorities had failed to carry out their duties under Sections 67 and 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
It was pointed out that authorities were statutorily obligated to determine and notify uniform taxi fares and to ensure the installation of proper taxi meters so that regulated charges are levied on users of private taxis. The petitioners alleged that the authorities had failed to undertake this exercise in a timely and effective manner.
Senior counsel L. Ravi Chander submitted that although the pleas were in public interest, the petition was filed as a regular writ petition since the association of gig workers has a direct interest in the matter, and therefore, a PIL may not be maintainable.
Counsel on record, Mohammed Absar Ahmed, argued that this inaction has resulted in excess fares being charged by aggregators under the guise of “surge fees,” “peak hour charges,” “congestion charges,” and other labels. He contended that without a grievance redressal mechanism or regulatory checks, the public continues to suffer due to the illegal demands of aggregators. He also pointed out that taxis in the state routinely operate without verified and sealed meters, in blatant violation of mandatory provisions. Instead, cab and taxi operators rely on GPS mechanisms, which are not mandated by law, and meters are not placed in clear view of passengers as required under the rules.
Senior counsel further submitted that in matters of this kind, an interim order can be passed only after hearing the government, and therefore the state must file its response without delay. The judge accordingly directed the government to file its response within four weeks and posted the matter to October 16.
