After facing flak from the Delhi High Court last week and being denied permission to ply on Delhi Roads, OLA approached a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court today..Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath reserved judgment on OLA’s appeal against the Single Bench order..Appearing for ANI Technologies (that owns the brand name OLA), Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi submitted that the only question in this controversy was whether OLA’s vehicles were allowed to ply in Delhi pursuant to a Supreme Court judgment of 1998. The Apex Court judgment (MC Mehta Vs Union of India) had directed that ‘all commercial vehicles which were more than 15 years old shall not be permitted to ply in the National Capital Territory of Delhi with effect from 2nd Oct. 1998.’.Relying on the said judgment, Sethi further argued that the Supreme Court was merely concerned with keeping all vehicles older than 15 years, out of Delhi and had not ventured into the type of fuel used by such vehicles. He also informed the Court that all the cars operated by OLA were either Euro II or Euro IV compliant. Furthermore, since these cars operated on an All India Tourist Permit, the jurisdiction to ban the vehicles lay on the Centre and not on the Government of Delhi..Counsel for the Delhi Govt submitted that the poor quality of diesel available in Delhi was ‘common knowledge’ and despite this awareness, it would be incorrect to allow the vehicles (of OLA) to run on diesel..The GNCT of Delhi had imposed a blanket ban from January 1 of this year against operation of all app-based cab services until they complied with the amended guidelines of the Radio Taxi Scheme of 2006. The amendment to the Guidelines was carried out in December, 2014. Referring to this amendment, counsel for GNCT further argued,.“Three companies have already made an application to us for inclusion in the amended Radio Taxi Scheme. If the subsidiaries can comply with the norms, then why not the main company?”.While the Division Bench was categorical in stating that it was only adjudicating upon the issue as to whether the Single Judge order could be set aside with the present appeal, it remains to be seen whether this judgment would have ramifications on the main petition.
After facing flak from the Delhi High Court last week and being denied permission to ply on Delhi Roads, OLA approached a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court today..Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath reserved judgment on OLA’s appeal against the Single Bench order..Appearing for ANI Technologies (that owns the brand name OLA), Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi submitted that the only question in this controversy was whether OLA’s vehicles were allowed to ply in Delhi pursuant to a Supreme Court judgment of 1998. The Apex Court judgment (MC Mehta Vs Union of India) had directed that ‘all commercial vehicles which were more than 15 years old shall not be permitted to ply in the National Capital Territory of Delhi with effect from 2nd Oct. 1998.’.Relying on the said judgment, Sethi further argued that the Supreme Court was merely concerned with keeping all vehicles older than 15 years, out of Delhi and had not ventured into the type of fuel used by such vehicles. He also informed the Court that all the cars operated by OLA were either Euro II or Euro IV compliant. Furthermore, since these cars operated on an All India Tourist Permit, the jurisdiction to ban the vehicles lay on the Centre and not on the Government of Delhi..Counsel for the Delhi Govt submitted that the poor quality of diesel available in Delhi was ‘common knowledge’ and despite this awareness, it would be incorrect to allow the vehicles (of OLA) to run on diesel..The GNCT of Delhi had imposed a blanket ban from January 1 of this year against operation of all app-based cab services until they complied with the amended guidelines of the Radio Taxi Scheme of 2006. The amendment to the Guidelines was carried out in December, 2014. Referring to this amendment, counsel for GNCT further argued,.“Three companies have already made an application to us for inclusion in the amended Radio Taxi Scheme. If the subsidiaries can comply with the norms, then why not the main company?”.While the Division Bench was categorical in stating that it was only adjudicating upon the issue as to whether the Single Judge order could be set aside with the present appeal, it remains to be seen whether this judgment would have ramifications on the main petition.