15-6-2024
The authorities can cancel the registration of taxi operators found to have charged a rate higher than the one fixed by the competent authority, the Court said.
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently criticised
the Union Territory administration for failing to curb exorbitant
fares charged from tourists by taxi operators [Tourist Taxi Stand No
1 Pahalgam & Anr vs Union Territory of J&K and Others].
Justice Sanjeev Kumar said it was unthinkable that the taxi
operators registered with the Department of Tourism in the Kashmir
valley could still charge exorbitant rates and fleece tourists.
"This Court is at pains to observe that the respondents have failed
to regulate the fair charging of rates by the taxi operators. It is
unthinkable in this era of digital world that the taxi operators who
are registered with the Department of Tourism, can still charge
exorbitant rates and fleece the tourists," the Court said.
It added that the tourism authorities must rise to the occasion and
put in place measures like making a provision for prepaid taxis, so
that no tourist operator would dare to charge a rate higher than
what is fixed by the Department of Tourism.
The authorities shall also be well within their right to cancel the
registration of taxi operators found to have charged a rate higher
than the one fixed by the competent authority, the Court said
further.
"This, however, may be done by the competent authority after
providing an opportunity of being heard to the said operators," it
added.
The Court was hearing a petition moved by the tourist taxi stands of
Pahalgam against the Director Tourism, Kashmir's decision to allow
additional taxis from other recognized stands of the valley to
operate in the area, which is a major tourist attraction in south
Kashmir.
The petitioners told the court that authorities have restricted the
registration of tourist taxis with the petitioner-stands to only 600
vehicles.
The permission to operate taxis from other recognised stands would
create a traffic chaos in Pahalgam and its adjoining areas like Aru
Valley, Betaab Valley and Chandanwari, the Court was told.
The Court found that the authorities had taken the decision to allow
taxis from other stands to operate in the area due to complaints
from tourists that exorbitant rates were being charged by the
vehicles of the two stands in Pahalgam.
"It is with a view to streamline the operation of the taxis in the
area of Pahalgam and to ensure that there is healthy competition,
the impugned decision appears to have been taken by a Committee
headed by the Director, Tourism, which held its meeting on 13th
April, 2024," it noted.
However, the Court added that the authorities seem to have forgotten
that taxis can operate only in areas for which they hold the permit.
It also noted that the Pahalgam Development Authority, in another
proceeding, had informed a Division Bench of the Court that no
commercial vehicle, except the ones registered with the taxi stands,
shall be allowed to ply from Pahalgam to Aru or Chandanwari.
"This petition is accordingly disposed of by providing that the
respondents shall not permit any taxi operator to operate its taxi
on a route for which it does not hold the valid permit for plying
the vehicles from Pahalgam to Aru Valley, Betab Valley, Chandanwari
etc. and other tourist destinations, within the jurisdiction of
Pahalgam Development Authority," the Court ordered.
The Court, however, also said that authorities would be at a liberty
to come up with a comprehensive policy to ensure that the taxi
operators, whose livelihood is dependent upon the tourism in the
Pahalgam area, are not deprived of their livelihood.
It added that authorities, at the same time, should ensure that
there is no traffic chaos created in the township of Pahalgam and
other tourist attractions around it.
Advocate Arif Sikander represented the petitioners.
Government Advocate Ilyas Nazir Laway represented the State.
MP High Court dismissed petition challenging appointment of 7 High Court judges filed by a Lawyer
Over charging tourist by taxi operators Jammu and Kashmir High Court slams UT admin over inaction
Irregular interfaith marriage Kerala High Court upholds conviction of man under Section 498A of IPC
Animal Sacrifice on Bakrid Bombay High Court allowed annual Urs at Vishalgad Dargah
Remove video of Arvind Kejriwal addressing court, from social Media platforms, Delhi High Court