The move leaves more space for Uber to decide its course of action. The options include applying for a licence under the amended radio taxi norms that include aggregators now or continuing to lobby for more favourable regulations or re-appealing in court. The company can also re-appeal in the court against the ban. However, the going may not be easy for Uber from here on as the amended Radio Taxi norms go against its business model and respite from any other corner seems unlikely.
Meanwhile, the company will continue to support its driver partners in the capital. In an official statement, the company said, “Uber appeared at the Delhi High Court today and withdrew its petition against the ban. The petition was withdrawn with liberty to avail remedies as may be available under law. We continue to have faith in the judicial and executive system, trusting that the interests of Delhi’s riders, and livelihoods of our driver-partners would be central to any decision.”
The Delhi Transport Authority in its order claimed Uber and OlaCabs were violating the Motor Vehicles Act by plying vehicles with all-India tourist permits within the national capital region. They were also flouting other rules such as running petrol and diesel taxis in Delhi where the law demands all public transport to run on compressed natural gas.
During the proceedings, the judge pulled up transport officials as taxis of companies like OlaCabs were continuing to operate despite the ban.
Web-based taxi companies, including Uber and OlaCabs, were banned from operating in Delhi on December 8 after a taxi driver on Uber’s network allegedly raped a 27-year-old finance executive.
Uber and OlaCabs had approached the Delhi High Court requesting quashing of the ban. The court directed the Delhi Transport Authority to hear the petition and pass an order. While OlaCabs managed to receive a stay on the ban order, Uber was directed to appear before the transport department.
In its order on Uber, the authority said, "They (Uber) provide a simple taxi service by transporting people from one point to another through a vehicle driven by a driver for a fee, which is collected by the petitioner company directly from the passenger. They are thus, a taxi, pure and simple… they are required to follow the law of the land and by using an AITP (all-India tourist permit) taxi for local point-to-point drop, as in the present case, the petitioner has violated the prevailing law of the land.”
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)