PANJIM: Private taxi operators have filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa, against the State government for ignoring various discrepancies in the Transport Department’s scheme for the installation of digital meters with Vehicle Location Tracking Device and Emergency Button (VLTD).
The taxi operators, who are part of the North Goa Vagator Caisua Taxi Owners Association and North Goa Tourist Taxi Owners Association (NGTTA) said they have approached the court as the government had failed to act on a representation sent by them on June 16, 2021 on the subject.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
In short, the Associations have taken objection to the Department allegedly favouring digital meters that are far more expensive to cheaper and alternative meters available in the market.
“The petitioners state that if the Director of Transport and the State Transport Authority succeed in foisting the above meters upon the petitioners, the petitioners would have to bear an amount of Rs 14,000 per device, which excludes the subscription of Rs 4,500 per annum,” said the Associations.
“On the contrary, as against the same, if the petitioners are permitted to purchase on their own, the subscription fee would be Rs 2,400 per annum that would work out to an expenditure of Rs 7,900, i.e. Rs 5,500 plus Rs 2,400 for the first year and thereafter only Rs 2,400 per year. This is excluding the cost of VLTD and its subscription,” the Associations added.
The petitioners also pointed out that the Goa State Public Transport Reimbursement of Cost of Digital Fare Meter 2021 provides reimbursement of the cost of the device of the digital meter with printer and GPS tracking device of Rs 8,759. However, they pointed out that this excludes data charges, backend services charges, annual maintenance charges etc.
They argued that not only were the digital fare meters offered by the government highly overpriced, but that there is also no provision in Rule 140 of the Goa Motor Vehicle Rules, 1991 for installing meters only supplied by or through the Department.
They added that the rebate being offered by the government would still end up in financial loss to them; and that the subscription of Rs 4,500 per annum will be an additional burden in the second year and onwards, making it an excessive amount towards the subscription.
“Thus, the installation of the digital fare meter presently approved by the government, the subscription to be paid for the same and thereafter subscription for VLTD will be a whopping amount causing additional financial burden,” said the petitioners.
Given that the prevalent rules mandate that the digital fare meter be approved by the government, they said they had expressed their readiness and willingness to install the meters through its own Association.
Against this backdrop, they provided data on the research they had done on cheaper digital meters. “The price imposed by the government upon the petitioners are highly unreasonable, arbitrary and onerous, in as much as against this, the petitioners can purchase the digital fare meter with printer for Rs 5,500 or Rs 4,500 from other authorised dealers in other States, which is half the price being imposed upon the petitioners,” said the Associations’.
In their petition, they pointed out that they had submitted all the details about the two cheaper types of digital meters with printer details and relevant documents to the government.
They asserted that the association members had requested to meet with the government’s competent personnel to clarify on the technical aspects of the meter as well as its calibration as per the rate chart in force.
“By way of the present petition, the petitioners seek leave and indulgence of this Honourable Court to invoke its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, to call in question the patent and latent inaction on the part of the government to decide upon the representation dated June 16, which was reiterated in the legal notice dated July 30, issued by the petitioners,” the Association members added.
