Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court Monday dismissed a plea alleging that there were not sufficient taxi and auto rickshaw stands in the city and those available were "illegally grabbed" by certain groups.
A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao rejected the petition after the Delhi government's counsel said the secretary of NGO Nyayabhoomi has a personal interest.
"You are a beneficiary. At your instance in the PIL (Public Interest Litigation), we will not interfere. Dismissed," the bench said.
The NGO's secretary, Rakesh Agarwal, has said in the PIL that he has no personal interest. This is not true, the Delhi government's standing counsel Ramesh Singh said.
"He cannot say there is no personal interest. He is the director and CEO at Magic Sewa Pvt Ltd which was engaged in providing taxi and auto services through mobile app and call centre. The petition should not be entertained," he said.
However, Agarwal said the firm was shut down last year before filing of this petition and he was running the NGO since 2002.
The NGO, in its plea, had sought directions to the government to put in place adequate number of auto rickshaw and taxi stands, technically known as cab-ranks, claiming that the number of such stands was much below the actual need.
It had contended that the few number of cab ranks was forcing drivers to create unauthorised stands which pose a risk to public safety and also lead to traffic congestion.
The petition had also alleged that the Delhi government and the Traffic Police were "misinterpreting the inadequate provisions of law in constructing cab-ranks and were failing to implement their own policies".
It had claimed that notified general taxi stands had been illegally grabbed by certain cartels and groups of drivers who do not let other taxi drivers use them.
The plea had alleged that cab-ranks for autos and taxis at the airport, railway stations and bus stations "had been cartelised by black and yellow taxis and auto rickshaws with the active help from the Delhi Traffic Police".
This had deprived other drivers of their livelihood and the passengers their right to choice of travel mode, it had claimed.
