1986 PLP 667 (CLC)

ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C. J.‑‑By the present petition, a grievance is made in regard to rejection of a taxi meter, which the petitioner wanted to be fitted on a taxi‑car. The order passed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector has been produced as Annexure P/4, and it states as follows:‑ "(1) Incorrect meter number. (2) No patent number." On such ground, the Motor Vehicle Inspector rejected the meter. Allegations have been made that the rejection is mala fide, because the Motor Vehicle Inspector wants that "Novel" brand taxi meters purchased only from Messrs Shareef Khan Brothers should be produced for inspection, and only such meters are being passed for being fitted to the vahicles. We had issued a pre‑admission notice to Mr. Sayeed A. Shaikh, the learned Advocate‑General, who has appeared before us, and we have heard him. Mr. A.S. Wasvani has filed an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C., on behalf of Messrs Shareef Khan Brothers for being impleaded as an intervenor. He relies on an order passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 234 of 1984 to set up a case that the intervenor was the only person whose imported meters should be fitted to taxis. We have not thought it fit to implead Shareef Khan as a party in this case, because he is neither a necessary nor a proper party in these proceedings. The petitioner is exacting the performance of public duties from a public servant in the mode that the law requires the public servant to perform. Civil litigation between private parties is hardly a relevant consideration in the facts of the present case. What is more that the petitioner; Asif Anwar, is not arrayed as a party in the suit. That suit appears to be a private dispute, concerning the import, or, use of "Novel" meters, and the present petition has no concern whatsoever with the import of any meter. We, therefore, reject the application made by Messrs Shareef Khan Brothers for being impleaded as intervenor. The relevant rule, governing the approval of taxi meter for being fitted in taxis, is stated in rule 124 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969. Nothing has been pointed out to us to show that the two grounds, on which the mater has been rejected, could serve as valid grounds for rejection of the same. We, therefore, admit this petition. Notice. Mr. Mansoor‑ul‑Arfin requests for an interim order in this case. Such order, as is sought, will be in the nature of mandamus, and, looking to the traditional reluctance of the High Courts in granting mandamus, we will order that the main petition itself be laid for hearing within three weeks from today. However, Pir Abdul Waheed, Motor Vehicle Inspector, who is present in Court, has given an undertaking before us that, regardless of the meter having been purchased from any person and having been manufactured by any manufacturer in the world, all that he would do, would be to test the meter, and, if found in order, allow its being fitted and sealed. We accept this interim undertaking 'and make it the Rule of the Court. H. B. T. Order accordingly.