Latest news with #Chinnappa
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
IPS officer's suspension: Counsel flags contradictions in Karnataka government stand on Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede
Bengaluru: The suspension of IPS officer Vikash Kumar Vikash following the June 4 stampede outside Chinnaswamy Stadium came under fresh scrutiny Friday, with his counsel arguingthe state govt's position in court contradicts its own actions. Senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for Vikash, told a division bench that while the govt has maintained it implemented all necessary security measures, the suspension of police officers appears to be a "knee-jerk reaction." He questioned the govt's claim that police officials acted as subordinates of franchisees. "It is difficult to accept such a statement from the state govt," Chinnappa submitted. The counsel also cited the govt's reference to an intelligence report received by the chief minister, but pointed out that the officer who prepared the report was transferred, diminishing the document's relevance in subsequent records. Chinnappa added the chief minister approved the suspension file without mentioning the intelligence input. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru "Accountability cannot be arbitrarily assigned. Govt regulations require that suspension decisions must be backed by evidence and satisfy criteria of necessity or desirability. In this case, the order only refers to a magisterial inquiry, not an officer-specific investigation or departmental proceedings," he argued. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You To Read in 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo He also noted that RCB's COO had contacted the police commissioner before the event. Though there was no written response, discussions between DCPs took place regarding security arrangements from airport to the stadium. Chinnappa submitted that a status report indicated complete implementation of security measures, and pointed out that the police had been managing crowd celebrations since the previous night. On the dereliction of duty allegations, Chinnappa said the action against Vikash seemed reactive rather than evidence-based. He argued that the case reflected a distinction between an officer's absence and incidents happening despite their presence. Meanwhile, a division bench led by Justice SG Pandit adjourned the proceedings to Monday. The matter relates to the July 1 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which nullified Vikash Kumar Vikash's suspension and suggested similar relief for four other suspended police officers. The CAT had also observed that social media posts by Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) potentially contributed to the crowd surge outside Chinnaswamy Stadium, where a stampede left 11 people dead. The state govt and RCB are contesting the tribunal's order.
Time of India
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Those who want to travel by bike taxi can't be stopped, appellants tell Karnataka high court
Bengaluru: A high court division bench Tuesday began hearing the bike-taxi issue, with appellants emphasising that a person who wants to travel by that mode of transport cannot be stopped. A division bench of acting Chief Justice V Kameshwar Rao and CM Joshi is hearing a batch of writ appeals filed by the aggregators and others. They have challenged the April 2 order of the single bench, wherein it was held that they cannot operate as aggregators of bike taxis unless the state govt notifies relevant guidelines to Section 92 of Motor Vehicles Act. Commencing the arguments, senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for two bike owners, argued that the single bench's first finding that a motorcycle can be used as a transport vehicle is incompatible with the observation that it cannot run unless the state forms rules. A person who wants to travel cannot be stopped; everyone wants the cheapest and fastest mode in Bengaluru. It is also a fundamental right to carry on with business under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution. If the law doesn't permit it, it is a different thing. Aggregation is a consequence, he added. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru Chinnappa submitted that in 2021, the state govt itself came out with an electric bike policy (e-bikes scheme), allowing such bikes in Karnataka, and in 2024 withdrew it on grounds that a committee in 2019 said it is not a good idea to have bike taxis. At this juncture, advocate-general Shashikiran Shetty submitted that ever since bike taxis have been off the roads, there has been a surge in the number of travellers in Metro and other public transport. However, Chinnappa responded by saying there is no correlation between the two aspects. As the hearing was inconclusive, the bench adjourned it to Wednesday.
Mint
24-06-2025
- Business
- Mint
‘Unaware of ground realities': Karnataka High Court's bike taxi ban challenged, petitioners cite fundamental rights
Two individual bike owners on Tuesday challenged the Karnataka High Court's single judge bench order that recently banned bike taxis in the state. The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, argued that the Karnataka government cannot infringe upon the fundamental right to carry on a business or choose a bike taxi over the metro or a bus. They argued that the prohibition not only contradicts provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act but also severely impacts both their livelihood and public convenience. In April, a single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court ruled that bike taxis cannot be permitted to operate without proper notification of guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It also barred the state Transport Department from registering motorcycles as transport vehicles or issuing them contract carriage permits. The ban order was to be implemented from June 16 after a six-week grace period. 'The law enables registration of two-wheelers as transport vehicles. If the statute allows it, the state cannot override it by denying registration or permits,' Chinnappa said in the court. The contract carriage includes various types of vehicles, including motor cabs, which can range from two to six seaters, he added. Chinnappa further argued that the stoppage of bike taxis over the past 7-10 days had led to chaos for everyday commuters. 'News reports have shown how disastrous this ban has been for the public. The state seems completely unaware of the ground realities,' he said. 'If there are safety concerns, the state should address them through policy -- not by outright prohibition,' he said. The bench also heard appeals filed by aggregators Ola, Uber, and Rapido against the ban order. 'A blanket refusal to register an entire class of vehicles -- like motorcycles -- is not backed by the Motor Vehicles Act. The State cannot selectively disable a class by denying permits,' he argued. The high court has scheduled the matter for the next hearing on June 25.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Bike taxi ban challenged in K'taka HC citing fundamental rights violation
Two individual bike owners moved the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, challenging a recent single judge ruling that banned the operation of bike taxis in the state. The petitioners argued that the state cannot infringe upon the fundamental right to carry on a business or choose a bike taxi over the metro or a bus. Represented by Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, the owners argued that the prohibition not only contradicts provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act, but also severely impacts both their livelihood and public convenience. Appearing before a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi, Chinnappa contended that the Motor Vehicles Act allows two-wheelers to be registered as transport vehicles. Therefore, the state government cannot legally refuse to issue contract carriage permits to bikes intended for taxi use. The law enables registration of two-wheelers as transport vehicles. If the statute allows it, the state cannot override it by denying registration or permits, he said, adding that contract carriage includes various types of vehicles, including motor cabs, which can range from two to six seaters. The ban was earlier enforced through a ruling in April, where a single judge held that without proper notification of guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, bike taxis cannot be permitted to operate. The ruling also barred the Transport department from registering motorcycles as transport vehicles or issuing them contract carriage permits. The order was to be implemented by June 16, after a six-week grace period. Referring to the aftermath, Chinnappa argued that the stoppage of bike taxis over the past 7-10 days had led to chaos for everyday commuters. News reports have shown how disastrous this ban has been for the public. The state seems completely unaware of the ground realities, he said. Arguing on constitutional grounds, Chinnappa claimed that the right to carry on a business is a fundamental right, and the state's blanket ban violates this. If there are safety concerns, the state should address them through policy -- not by outright prohibition, he said. He also said citizens have the fundamental right to choose their mode of transport: One has the right to say, I prefer a bike taxi over the metro or a bus. The state cannot infringe upon this personal liberty. The bench was hearing appeals filed by aggregators Ola, Uber, and Rapido against the same order. Chinnappa, appearing on behalf of two independent bike owners -- Varikruti Mahendra Reddy and Madhu Kiran -- clarified that vehicle registration should not be contingent on being tied to an aggregator. Chinnappa also argued that while contract carriage permits fall under the domain of state governments, the power to register vehicles lies solely with the central government. He contended that the state has no authority to deny vehicle registration altogether, especially not by singling out two-wheelers. A blanket refusal to register an entire class of vehicles -- like motorcycles -- is not backed by the Motor Vehicles Act. The State cannot selectively disable a class by denying permits, he argued. When asked by the bench if bike taxis in other states are running without issues, the Advocate General responded that while some states permit them in limited numbers under aggregators, none offer unrestricted permits. Chinnappa rebutted by stating that Karnataka's own aggregator rules allow the inclusion of motor cabs, including two-wheelers. After extensive arguments, the court scheduled the matter for further hearing on June 25.
The Hindu
24-06-2025
- Automotive
- The Hindu
State government has no power in law to refuse registration of two-wheelers as transport vehicles and prevent their use as bike taxis, vehicle owners claim in Karnataka High Court
The State government has no power in law to refuse either registration of two-wheelers as transport vehicles or grant of contract carriage permits to them to carry a passenger under the 'guise of policy decision' when the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act permits two-wheelers to be used as contract carriage transport vehicles, it was argued before the High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday. This argument was made before a Division Bench comprising acting Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice C.M. Joshi during the hearing of the appeals against the April 2 verdict of a single judge, who had held that Ola, Uber, and Rapido cannot offer bike-taxis on their platform unless the State government notifies relevant guidelines under Section 93 of the MV Act. What govt. said The statement made before the court by the Advocate-General that the government has taken a 'policy decision' not to frame rules/guidelines to allow bike-taxis, is contrary to the provisions of the MV Act, it has been argued. Senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for a few owners of two-wheelers, pointed out that a Division Bench of the High Court in 2021 made it clear that the definition of contract carriage under MV Act include even a motorcycle, to be used for hire and reward on which a passenger could be carried on pillion as notified by the Central government. The act of the State transport authorities in refusing to register two-wheelers as transport vehicles is a violation of the Act, Mr. Chinnappa contended. Why is there a provision in the MV Act that prescribes a fine on the permit holder of contract carriage, including two-wheelers, refusing to ply or to carry passengers if law does not recognise registration of two-wheelers as transport vehicles and grant of contract carriage permits, Mr. Chinnappa argued. Already covered He also contended that there is no need for separate licence or permission for the aggregators like Ola, Uber, Rapido and others to offer bike-taxis on their platforms as the licence by the State government under the Karnataka On-demand Transportation Technology Aggregators Rules, 2016, is sufficient as it covers motor cabs, which include even two-wheelers. The Bench adjourned further hearing till June 25. The Bench is hearing appeals filed by Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd., ANI Technology Pvt. Ltd, which operates Ola services, Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd., which operates Rapido services, and Varikruti Mahendra Reddy and others, who own two-wheelers. Meanwhile, the Bench permitted the Bike Taxi Welfare Association to join the appeals against the April 2 verdict.
