Motorcycles Can Be Registered as Transport Vehicles | Contract Carriage Under MV Act : Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has decisively affirmed that motorcycles are legally eligible to be registered as transport vehicles and operated as contract carriages under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This landmark ruling dismantles a de facto state-wide prohibition on bike taxi services and reasserts the primacy of statutory interpretation over administrative policy in regulating mobility.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The dispute centers on whether motorcycles - registered for personal use (white board) or intended for commercial use (yellow board) - can be legally operated as bike taxis under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellants, including technology aggregators (Uber, Ola, Rapido), individual motorcycle owners, and the Bike Taxi Welfare Association, sought legal recognition of bike taxi services as a legitimate form of public transport. The State of Karnataka, through its Transport Authorities, had consistently refused to register motorcycles as transport vehicles or issue contract carriage permits, citing policy objections and safety concerns.

Procedural History

The matter arose through five consolidated writ petitions filed between 2019 and 2023:

• 2019: Ola filed W.P. No. 14485/2019 seeking permission to operate motorcycles as taxis; dismissed by Single Judge on 12.09.2019.
• 2021: Rapido filed W.P. No. 14627/2021 challenging rejection of its application for aggregator license; Uber filed W.P. No. 6421/2022 seeking registration of motorcycles as transport vehicles.
• 2023: Individual motorcycle owners filed W.P. No. 24569/2023 demanding registration and permits under Sections 41, 66, and 74 of the MV Act.
• 2025: The Single Judge delivered a common order on 02.04.2025, holding that while motorcycles could legally be used as contract carriages, the State could not be directed to permit aggregators to operate them without a policy framework.
• 2025: All appellants filed writ appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, challenging the Single Judge’s refusal to mandate permit issuance.

Relief Sought

The appellants sought:

• Mandatory registration of motorcycles as transport vehicles under Section 41 of the MV Act.
• Grant of contract carriage permits under Sections 73 and 74.
• Recognition of aggregators’ right to operate platforms for bike taxi services under Section 93.
• Prohibition of coercive action against motorcycle owners operating as bike taxis.

The Parties' Positions

• Appellants: Argued that motorcycles fall squarely within the statutory definitions of ‘motorcab’ and ‘contract carriage’ under Sections 2(25) and 2(7) of the MV Act. Relied on Central Government notifications (S.O. 1248(E)/2004 and RT-11021/34/2023 MVL) and the MVAG 2025 guidelines.
• Respondents (State): Contended that motorcycles are not ‘motorcabs’ under the MV Act, citing the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and the absence of State-specific regulations. Invoked policy concerns over pollution, safety, and congestion.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether motorcycles fall within the statutory definition of ‘contract carriage’ under Section 2(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and whether the State Government may lawfully prohibit their use as bike taxis in the absence of a formal regulatory framework.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant/Petitioner

The appellants relied on multiple statutory and administrative sources:

• Section 2(25) defines ‘motorcab’ as a vehicle adapted to carry not more than six passengers for hire or reward. A motorcycle carrying one pillion passenger satisfies this definition.
• Section 2(7) defines ‘contract carriage’ as any motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire or reward under a contract. The term ‘motor vehicle’ under Section 2(28) explicitly includes two-wheelers with engine capacity exceeding 25cc.
• Notification S.O. 1248(E)/2004 issued by the Central Government under Section 41(4) explicitly lists ‘motorcycle used for hire to carry one passenger on pillion’ as a transport vehicle.
• Clarification dated 22.01.2024 from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH) unequivocally stated that motorcycles fall within Section 2(7) and must be processed for contract carriage permits.
• MVAG 2025 permits aggregation of motorcycles and requires license forms to include motorcycle details.
• Karnataka Gig Workers Act, 2025 and its Rules initially recognized ‘Ride-Hailing - 2 SAS model’ as including motorcycles, indicating State acknowledgment of the service.
• Precedents from ANI Technologies v. State of Karnataka (W.A. No. 4010/2019) and Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India affirmed the right to operate transport services under liberalized permit regimes.

For the Respondent/State

The State contended:

• Section 2(25) and CMV Rules, 1989 do not classify two-wheelers as ‘carrying passengers’ - a term used only for three- and four-wheelers - implying exclusion by omission (casus omissus).
• Section 67(3) grants the State power to modify permits or make schemes, which it interpreted as authority to prohibit bike taxis.
• KODTTA Rules, 2016 define ‘taxi’ as a ‘motorcab’, and since no State rules permit two-wheelers as motorcabs, aggregators cannot operate bike taxi platforms.
• The 2019 Expert Committee Report recommended banning bike taxis in Bengaluru due to congestion and pollution, which the State claimed constituted policy.
• The 2021 Electric Bike Taxi Scheme was withdrawn due to lack of applications, implying no intent to permit non-electric bike taxis.
• Aggregators like Uber and Ola held licenses only for four-wheelers, and Section 93 requires separate licensing for each vehicle type.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a rigorous statutory interpretation, rejecting the State’s policy-based arguments as legally untenable.

The Court first examined the definitions under the MV Act. It held that Section 2(28) includes two-wheelers with engine capacity over 25cc within the definition of ‘motor vehicle’. Section 2(25) defines ‘motorcab’ as a vehicle adapted to carry up to six passengers for hire or reward. A motorcycle carrying one pillion passenger clearly satisfies this definition. Consequently, Section 2(7)’s definition of ‘contract carriage’ - a motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire or reward under contract - applies to motorcycles.

"It is apparent from the definition of the term ‘contract carriage’ that it refers to a motor vehicle, which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract... Thus, a 'motorcycle' clearly falls within the definition of ‘contract carriage’ if the same is used by a person holding a permit... for carrying a passenger for hire or reward."

The Court dismissed the State’s reliance on the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, noting that Rule 2 categorizes vehicles by construction and capacity - not by commercial use. The absence of the phrase ‘carrying passengers’ in the L2 category for motorcycles does not imply exclusion; it merely reflects that motorcycles are inherently designed for human transport, unlike goods-carrying vehicles.

The Court gave decisive weight to the Central Government’s clarification dated 22.01.2024, which explicitly directed all States to process applications for contract carriage permits for motorcycles. This directive, issued under Section 74(3), overrode any inconsistent State practice.

The Court also rejected the State’s claim that the 2019 Expert Committee Report constituted a binding policy. The report was merely advisory, and the State had itself acted contrary to it by framing the Electric Bike Taxi Scheme in 2021 - demonstrating recognition of the service’s legitimacy.

On the issue of aggregators, the Court held that Section 93 requires a license to operate as an aggregator, but KODTTA Rules define ‘taxi’ as ‘motorcab’, which includes motorcycles. Since the license application form (Form 1) requires listing all vehicles operated, aggregators may include motorcycles without needing a separate license. The MVAG 2025 further confirms this by mandating inclusion of motorcycles in Form III.

The Court emphasized that Article 19(1)(g) protects the right to carry on trade, including bike taxi services. A blanket prohibition without a lawful framework violates this fundamental right. Article 19(6) permits restrictions only if imposed by law, in public interest, and reasonably. The State’s refusal to issue permits based on policy, without any statutory rule or notification, failed this test.

The Court distinguished Government of NCT of Delhi v. Roppen Transportation, noting that case dealt with white-board motorcycles (private vehicles used commercially), whereas this case concerned yellow-board motorcycles (registered as transport vehicles), which are legally permissible.

The Verdict

The appellants won. The Court held that motorcycles are legally eligible to be registered as transport vehicles and operated as contract carriages under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The State cannot prohibit their use as bike taxis in the absence of a lawful regulatory framework. The Court directed the Transport Authorities to process pending and fresh applications for registration and permits without discrimination, and to permit aggregators to include motorcycles in their licensed fleets.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Registration Cannot Be Denied on Vehicle Type

• Practitioners must now file applications for motorcycle registration as transport vehicles under Section 41, citing S.O. 1248(E)/2004 and MORTH’s 2024 clarification.
• Regional Transport Authorities cannot refuse registration on grounds that motorcycles are not ‘motorcabs’ - this is now settled law.
• Any refusal must be in writing, with specific reasons tied to individual application criteria under Section 80(2), not blanket policy.

Aggregators May Include Motorcycles in Existing Licenses

• Aggregators holding KODTTA licenses (e.g., Uber, Ola) may now include motorcycles in their existing license applications without seeking new licenses.
• Form 1 of KODTTA Rules requires listing all vehicles; no separate license is required for two-wheelers.
• Aggregators must ensure compliance with MVAG 2025, including displaying driver details and vehicle permits digitally or physically.

Policy Cannot Override Statute

• State governments cannot ban bike taxis through administrative policy or committee recommendations.

• Any restriction must be enacted through a formal notification under Section 67(3) or subordinate legislation under Section 96.

• Courts will apply strict scrutiny to any prohibition, requiring credible evidence of public interest and absence of less restrictive alternatives.

• The Karnataka Gig Workers Act’s initial inclusion of motorcycle taxi services signals that even regulatory frameworks designed for gig workers must align with MV Act definitions.

• Other States with similar bans (e.g., Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu) may now face legal challenges based on this precedent.