Motorcycle Is Within Definition Of "Taxi" Under KODTTA Rules: Karnataka High Court While Permitting Registration Of Bike Taxis As Transport Vehicles

The Court directed the State to consider such applications for the registration of motorcycles as transport vehicles and for the grant of permits to operate them as contract carriages.

​The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi observed, “As discussed herein before, the motorcycle is included in the definition of a motor cab under Section 2(25) of the MV Act. The KODTTA Rules do not mention four- wheelers, three-wheelers or two-wheelers; it provides for conditions for issuance of a license to operate a ‘taxi’. Since a motorcycle would fall within the definition of a motor cab under Section 2(25) and consequently within the definition of a 'taxi' under Section 2(7) of the KODTTA Rules, a licence issued under the said Rules would also cover a bike taxi unless specified otherwise.”

Senior Advocates K. Arun Kumar, V. Srinivasan Raghavan, Dhyan Chinnappa, Udaya Holla, and Shashank Garg appeared for the Appellants, while Senior Advocates K. Shashikiran Shetty and Jayna Kothari appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The dispute centred on the right to provide bike taxi services in Karnataka. While the Appellants—comprising technology aggregators (Uber, Ola, and Rapido) and individual motorcycle owners—argue they are entitled to operate bike taxis, the State authorities have declined to grant the necessary permits.

The appellants sought legal intervention to compel the State to register motorcycles as transport vehicles and issue contract carriage permits. They also challenged the State’s stance that such services should be restricted to electric bikes. Although the aggregators already hold licenses for motor cabs, their attempts to include motorcycle taxis have faced regulatory hurdles, including license suspensions and rejected applications. The individual owners further seek protection from coercive police action while awaiting a formal regulatory framework for bike taxi operations.

In the impugned order, the Single Judge addressed two primary questions: whether the current law prohibits Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) bikes from operating as taxis, and if not, what directions should be issued to the State.

The Court affirmed that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, motorcycles can be registered as transport vehicles and granted "contract carriage" permits. However, the judge ultimately ruled in favor of the State’s policy discretion, holding that the appellants lacked a "crystallized right" to operate these services immediately. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of with the directive that aggregators cannot offer bike taxi services until the Government of Karnataka notifies specific regulatory guidelines under Section 93 of the Act.

Contention of the Parties

The Appellants argued that motorcycles fall under the definition of "motorcabs" and must be registered as transport vehicles under the Central Motor Vehicles Act. They contended that the State lacks the discretion to prohibit bike taxis, especially as Section 178(3) of the Act implies their legality by penalizing drivers who refuse to carry passengers. The appellants further submitted that existing aggregator licenses are "vehicle agnostic" and should cover motorcycles, asserting that the absence of specific State regulations cannot function as a total prohibition on their constitutional right to conduct business.

In response, the State argued that motorcycles are not transport vehicles because the Central Rules only specify "carrying passengers" for three and four-wheeled vehicles. It was asserted that the State holds pervasive control over transport permits and that current aggregator licenses for Ola and Uber are strictly limited to motorcabs (four-wheelers). The State maintained that prohibiting bike taxis is a reasonable restriction based on safety and pollution concerns, noting that motorcycle owners still have alternative commercial avenues through logistics and delivery services under the Gig Workers Act.

Observations of the Court

The principal questions addressed by the Court were whether a motor cycle can be registered and used as a transport vehicle and a contract carriage; whether the motorcycle owner has the right to carry on the business of engaging in plying bike taxis; and whether the State Government can ban bike taxi service by withholding registration of motorcycles as contract carriages and withholding permits as contract carriages.

“Thus, the contention that the words “carrying passengers” are used for describing different categories of vehicles, differentiating whether the vehicle can be used for carrying passengers for hire or reward, is ex facie erroneous. The question of whether the vehicle can be used for hire or reward is not a relevant factor in categorising vehicles under Rule 2 of the CMV Rules. The various clauses of Rule 2 of the CMV Rules, as referred to above, merely categorise vehicles by capacity and whether they are constructed for carrying passengers or goods. There is no dispute that the motorcycle is used for carrying passengers. The question of whether it can be used for hire or reward is not a feature of the construction of the motor vehicle and thus not relevant to its classification,” the Court held while rejecting the contention that the motorcycle cannot be used as a ‘contract carriage’.

The Court also rejected the contention that a motorcycle falls outside the definitions of a ‘transport vehicle’ as defined under Section 2(47) of the MV Act, or a motorcab as defined under Section 2 (25) of the MV Act.

Further, the Court said that in terms of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the State is not precluded from imposing restrictions on the freedom to carry on any profession, occupation, trade or business subject to two conditions: first, that the same is in the interest of the general public; and second, that the same is reasonable. Thus, the action of the concerned authorities effectively preventing the appellants from providing bike-taxi service is required to be tested on the anvil of the aforesaid conditions, the Court said.

“In our view, a blanket prohibition on issuing contract carriage permits to motorcycles cannot be considered as a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India for several reasons,” the Court said.

The Court added that, firstly, the blanket ban on the use of motorcycles as bike taxis is contrary to the scheme and provisions of the MV Act, which, as discussed above, permits inclusion of motorcycles as transport vehicles, contract carriages and public service vehicles. Considering that the MV Act is traceable to entry 35 of List III of the Seventh Schedule, the power exercised by the State Government cannot militate against the legislative intent of the MV Act.

Secondly, the Court said that there is no statutory rule, instrument or notification that prohibits the registration of motorcycles as transport vehicles or the issuance of contract carriage permits for motorcycles.

Thirdly, the Court noted that it is well settled that the greater the restriction, the higher the scrutiny required. The Court added that there is a complete ban on providing bike taxi service. Thus, the necessity for proscribing the carrying on of such service in the interest of the general public requires substantiation by credible material.

“It is pertinent to note that bike taxi services are operative in several states in India. The states of Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Mizoram have issued notifications permitting bike taxi services by requiring applicants to obtain contract carriage permits from State and Regional Transport Authorities upon receipt of an application and payment of the defined fees. Additionally, State Governments such as Bihar, Jharkhand, Gujarat, and Telangana have also provided for the grant of commercial registration and permits for motorcycles,” the Court held.

Conclusion

The Court concluded, “In the present case, we are not concerned with the use of white board motorcycles – that is, motorcycles registered as private vehicles – as bike taxis. The present case concerns the right of motorcycle owners to register their vehicles as transport vehicles (yellow board) and to use them as contract carriages. The Supreme Court had also expressed a prima facie view that the State would have Legislative competence to prescribe conditions for obtaining a licence as an aggregator under Section 93 of the MV Act, and the respondent in the said case did not have a licence under Section 93 of the Act.”

The Court ordered that the motorcycle owners are at liberty to file applications for registration of their vehicles as transport vehicles (yellow board).

It also directed the State Government to consider such applications for the registration of motorcycles as transport vehicles and for the grant of permits to operate them as contract carriages. The Regional Transport Authority may also impose such conditions as it considers necessary, as attached to the said permits, in accordance with law and having regard to the provisions of Section 74(2) of the MV Act. It was directed that the concerned authorities shall consider the pending applications of the aggregators and pass appropriate orders. The aggregators were also at liberty to file fresh applications for licences.

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Cause Title: Ani Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [Writ Appeal No. 906 of 2025] and other connected matters.

Appearances:

Appellants: Senior Advocates K. Arun Kumar, V. Srinivasan Raghavan, Dhyan Chinnappa, Udaya Holla, and Shashank Garg with Advocates Faisal Sherwani, Aditya Vikram, Anupama G. Hebbar, Sankeerth Vittal, Bhavana Menon, Dharshini S., Abdul Hadin, Madhur A. Kalyanshetty, Nishanth A.V., Girish Kumar B.M., Aradhya Chaturvedi, Manoj Aradhya, and Nishtha Jain.

Respondents: Senior Advocates K. Shashikiran Shetty, Advocate General, and Jayna Kothari with Advocates Mahesh A. Chowdhary (Special Counsel), Rashi Singh, Adoorya Harish, Omkar Margad, Nayana Tara B.G. (Central Government Counsel), S. Nataraja Sharma, N.P. Amruthesh, Deeksha Amruthesh, Saraswathy Prasad, and Umapathi S.

Click here to read/download the Judgment