The Supreme Court has issued a directive order to the government to frame the laws that deal with ride-sharing businesses as soon as possible. Mentioning the context that such services are being operated by drivers through their private vehicles, making travel easy and accessible, the court concluded that such services cannot be banned by showing the lack of legal structure.

Advocate Shyam Kumar Shrestha's petition filed on March 28, 2075 demanding the cancellation of the registration of the ride-sharing platform 'Pathao Nepal Pvt. Ltd.' was dismissed by the Supreme Court on June 13.

The full text of the decision made by the joint bench of the then Chief Justice Vishwambhar Prasad Shrestha and Judge Tek Prasad Dhungana has been published recently. In full, the government has been instructed to quickly implement the necessary legal provisions for the registration, operation, management and monitoring of transport service businesses such as ride sharing. 

The Supreme Court has said that stopping the ride-sharing service is against the fundamental rights of the Constitution. "Actually, due to the lack of law, obstructing the ride-sharing service, private vehicle drivers earn their living by transporting passengers and earn a living on a daily basis, and their right to live with dignity, the right to employment, the right to labor, and the right of the consumer will be adversely affected," said the verdict. , 2076, in view of the fact that the government of Nepal has recognized ride sharing as an industry, it does not seem to be fair and legal to prohibit it.'

The Supreme Court has also instructed the government to take immediate steps to prepare a legal system to legalize ride sharing, to accommodate women and disabled passengers and to develop a system of registration and monitoring of service provider vehicles.

'Ride sharing service has increased competition and quality in service. Such a service is becoming easy, accessible and popular," said the verdict. The court has directed the Government of Nepal, the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supply and the Department of Transport to prepare a legal structure for the regulation and management of companies like Pathao Nepal as soon as possible. It has also been asked to regularly monitor whether the service provider has/has not complied with the specified conditions.  In the judgment, it has been said that issues like dissolution of

company can be resolved through regular process and before this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the writ, it can be proceeded through the same process. Although the Vehicle and Transportation Management Act, 2049 prohibits the use of private vehicles as public transportation, the court's analysis is that since ride sharing has contributed to the expansion of service facilities and accessibility, a legal structure is needed to manage it.  It was mentioned in the petition of advocate Shrestha that Pathao Nepal was registered to provide application operation support (computer-related services) but it was illegally operating a ride-sharing business of carrying passengers on the back of a motorcycle. In the

petition, it was claimed that according to the Vehicle and Transport Management Act, 2049, the legal provision that private vehicles cannot be used for public transport services has been violated. The petitioner argued that under the Foreign Investment and Technology Transfer Act, 2049, the act went beyond the permitted purpose and the foreign investment was misused.

Along with Pathao, the Government of Nepal, the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supply, the Department of Industry, the Department of Transport Management, the Metropolitan Traffic Police Division and the Office of the Company Registrar have been made opponents. The petitioner pointed out the legality and need for regulation of the ride-sharing service and demanded the cancellation of the registration.