The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to review its earlier order banning plying of e-rickshaws in the national capital.
The judges, while refusing to vacate the ban on e-rickshaws, said without proper regulations they can’t allow them to ply in the national capital.
According to main petitioner Sikha Rai, the High Court said that it is not against e-rickshaws plying but proper regulations need to be put in place.
The matter will be taken up again on Friday and whatever Union Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari has said about e-rickshaws will be brought before the high court, Shikha Rai said.
The Delhi High Court had on July 31 directed the government to stop plying of e-rickshaws in the city with immediate effect.
“Stop it as of now,” a bench of justices BD Ahmed and S Mridul said, while observing that “unregulated plying of vehicles on Delhi roads is prima facie a hazard to other traffic on road as well as the citizens”.
“You (Delhi government) say it is illegal. You stop them (e-rickshaws) in the meantime, till a law is framed to regulate them. You can’t allow them to take law into their hands,” the court said in its order.
The court directed, “Respondents (city government and authorities) will forthwith take steps to prevent plying of e-rickshaws without fail”.
During the brief proceedings, advocate Zubeda Begum, appearing for the city government, submitted that as per a letter received from Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, the government is proposing to amend the Motor Vehicles Act to the extent that it will take e-rickshaws out of the ambit of the legislation.
“Local bodies will then frame rules to regulate the e-rickshaws,” Zubeda said while referring to the letter.
While the bench refused to comment on the ministry’s proposed move, it observed that in the present situation “plying of e-rickshaws is illegal”.
It also took note of news reports that a three-year-old boy died and his mother was injured recently as a result of an accident involving an e-rickshaw.
“There is no specific load or number of passengers that they are required to carry. They are not registered. They have no insurance,” the bench also observed.
