The Pune Regional Transport Office (RTO) has stated that it will evaluate “afresh” Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd’s (Rapido’s) application for a permit to operate as an aggregator. The RTO’s decision comes in response to a Bombay High Court judgement.
“The Bombay High Court has instructed us to review Rapido’s application for a licence to operate its services in Pune city. As a result, as directed by the High Court, we shall evaluate their case on its merits and in compliance with the law,” Regional Transport Officer Ajit Shinde told The Indian Express.
Details about Pune RTO said it would reconsider Rapido’s application to operate in the city after being asked not to use it
Rapido provided the RTO with a copy of the High Court order. Shinde stated that the RTO had already denied Rapido’s application for a licence on April 1, 2022.
“Though the RTO claimed in the High Court that it had rejected Rapido’s application for grant of licence to conduct operations in Pune, Rapido never received the certified copy of the order for months,” said advocate Aman Dutta, one of the counsels who represented Rapido in the High Court, at a press conference. Neither by email nor by registered mail (post). Rapido didn’t get a copy from the RTO until October 20, 2022. The RTO was unable to furnish a copy of the email or verification that it was transmitted by registered mail.”
Dutta stated that, while the RTO claimed to have denied Rapido’s application for a licence on April 1, the Supreme Court, in a decision issued on April 21, 2022, directed the parties to maintain the status quo in the dispute. “The court had ordered that the status quo be preserved until it resolved the petition brought by an aggregator,” Dutta stated. “As a result, Rapido was carrying out its operations in Pune city as per the Supreme Court decision of April 21,” he explained.
Dutta said the Bombay High Court in its order on March 7 had declared “no aggregator shall ply if the application has not been made or if an application for licencing has been rejected”. “This implies if I have made an application and it has not been refused, I can ply. We feel our application was not rejected because we never received a copy of the so-called rejection until April 21, when the Supreme Court ordered that the status quo be maintained in the case. On October 20, we received a photocopy of the RTO’s rejection of our application,” he explained.
