Tootle and Pathao, both the services have been very effective in terms of providing services and cheaper transportation to the locals. Looking at it from consumer point of view, it is certainly a great form of innovation and technology ending the syndicate of taxi system that ruled the public transportation system. I am not hesitant to say this that a new system has come up with a better option but my question is if a service that is good has been defined illegal by law what should be corrective action.
- Keep it running for year till the time something bad happens
- Work on the policy and governance
- Give benefit of doubt when its leaders are moving around promoting their agendas of highlighting youth empowerment which is yet a business model
Few days back the arrest of the riders of Pathao has created a ripple about the legality of such service. The companies have been justifying their operation in the name of providing service and employment to the youth.
Tootle is a company lead by a group of businessman and Pathao is a franchise both of these company aspire to be a leader in public transportation as GOZEK and GOGRAB.
- The question that arises here is in a developing country like our's where there is lack of visibility of governance such services needs a broad spectrum of policies and regulation.
- These service have been operational here for more than 2 years. In the name of innovation how long should they be given a benefit of doubt.
- In the age of technology and innovation if legality is not clearly will it be able to do justice to its service with its illegal status. As there are more issues of privacy and data that can be of concern
According to vehicle and transportation act 2049 article 8 sub section 2 , "It is illegal for any private number plate to transport people by taking money."
It clearly says there is no provision for services like tootle and Pathao to exist in our transportation system. When the law has no provision how come such services have legal existence ?
Another question is these companies are here to make money they are not a volunteering company. They are here to make money so why aren't they bound to be accountable to the law. If they are then what is their legal status when there is no provision of existence of such service.
I think the current move of Nepal government has opened a broad way for the amendment and development of proper policy. Defying and denying the government move is a question of legality.
Why are the nepali people so offensive about the role and position of government ? why cant we standardize the legal definition
Posts
