BIJAI NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference to a Full Bench arises out of a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of Mandamus commanding the U. P. Gov ernment to withdraw its Notification dated June 29, 1968, directing that Oath Com-missioners appointed by District Judge under Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not authorised to verify affidavits relating to the proceedings before the various authorities constituted under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 5 of 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE six petitioners, who are lawyers of Azamgarh, were appointed Oath Com missioners by the District Judge of. that place by his order dated 19-7-1966 passed under the provisions of S, 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Originally, affidavits to be filed, inter alia, before the various authorities constituted under the Act, used to be verified by the petitioners, the pro priety of which was also recognised by the U.P.Government under its G.O. No. 3147/VH-AI-45/65 dated March 11, 1968. Subsequently, by G. O. No. 1855/VII-AI-44/65 dated June 29, 1968, the U. P. Government partially modified the afore said G.O.dated March 11, 1968 and withdrew its recognition in respect of af fidavits to be filed before the Consolida tion Authorities saying that, in view of judicial pronouncement, they were not Courts of Civil judicature and, as such. Oath Commissioners were not authorised to verify affidavits relating to proceedings before them.The petitioners challenge the legality of that order of the Govern ment on the ground that the various autho rities constituted under the Act are Courts of Civil Jurisdiction.

(3.) THE relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure under which Oath Commissioners are appointed and verify affidavits are to be found in Sections 139 and 141 and Order 19.