# Gaurav Kapoor v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 438
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-05
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 34838 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gaurav-kapoor-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45302
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Chapter IV, rule 18 of Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952- Affidavit sworn by the
father of the Petitioner-but at relevant placename of Petitioner shown-clear prohibition in
Rules, 1952-correction requires in affidavit-not
a matter of verification-after Affidavit sworn-no
correction-W.P. dismissed with liberty to file
fresh petition.

Cases cited:

## Text

438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)02ILR A438

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ C No. 34838 of 2019

Gaurav Kapoor ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shivam Yadav

Chapter IV, rule 18 of Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952- Affidavit sworn by the
father of the Petitioner-but at relevant placename of Petitioner shown-clear prohibition in
Rules, 1952-correction requires in affidavit-not
a matter of verification-after Affidavit sworn-no
correction-W.P. dismissed with liberty to file
fresh petition.

Cases cited:

1. Dwarka Nath Vs. Income Tax Officer and
another, AIR 1966 Supreme Court, 81

(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. The petitioner has filed the present
writ petition seeking mandamus directing
to respondent-2 to take appropriate steps
on the complaint made by the petitioner on
10.4.2019 alleging that respondent-4 is
engaged in commercial activity in the
residential area.

2. Sri Shivam Yadav, learned
counsel for the respondent has pointed out
that affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition is being sworn by father of the
petitioner but at the relevant place of
affidavit, name of the petitioner has been
shown. There is defect in the affidavit filed
in support of the writ petition. Therefore,
the
present
writ
petition
is
not
maintainable.

3. On 24.10.2019, the counsel for
the petitioner was granted time to
move an appropriate application for
correcting
the
affidavit.
Learned
counsel for the petitioner has moved an
application to amend the said defect.

4. However, our attention has
been drawn to Chapter IV, Rule 18 of
the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952;
wherein,
it
is
provided
that
no
interlineations, alternations or erasures
in an affidavit shall be permitted after
swearing has been done.

5. Chapter IV, Rule 18 of
Allahabad High Court Rules reads
thus:-

"18. Correction in affidavit:-
All
interlineations,
alterations
or
erasures
in
an
affidavit
shall
be
initialled by the person swearing it and
the person before whom it is sworn. Such
interlineations, alterations or erasures
shall be made in such manner as not to
obliterate or render it impossible or
difficult to read the original matter. In
case, such matter has been obliterated so
as to make it impossible or difficult to
read it, it shall be re-written on the
margin and initialled by the person
before whom the affidavit is worn. No
interlineation, alteration or erasure
shall be made in an affidavit after it has
been
sworn"
2 All. Gaurav Kapoor Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
439

6. In Dwarka Nath Vs. Income Tax
Officer and another, AIR 1966 Supreme
Court, 81, one of the question which
comes
for
consideration
before
the
Supreme Court was that the order of
Commissioner Income Tax under Section
33 A of the Act was challenged under
Article 226 of the Constitution, in which
this Court has dismissed the writ petition
on the ground that affidavit was defective
and it was held that some of the
paragraphs were based on perusal of the
record and some paragraphs were on
deponent's own knowledge. The Supreme
Court held that if affidavit was defective in
any manner, the High Court instead of
dismissing the petition, should have given
the appellant a reasonable opportunity to
file a better affidavit. The relevant part of
the judgement reads as under:-

"9.The
High
Court
mainly
dismissed the writ petition on the ground
that the affidavit filed in support of the
writ petition was highly unsatisfactory and
that on the basis of such an affidavit it was
not possible to entertain the petition. In
exercise of the powers conferred by Article
225 of the constitution and of other powers
enabling it in that behalf of the High Court
of Allahabad framed the Rules of Court.
Chapter XXII thereof deals with the
procedure to be followed in respect of
proceeding under Article 226 of the
constitution other than a writ in the nature
of habeas corpus. The relevant rule is subrule (2) of rule 1 of Chapter XXII, which
reads :

The application shall set out
concisely in numbered paragraphs the
facts upon which the applicant relies and
the grounds upon which the court is asked
to issue a direction, order or writ and
shall conclude with a prayer stating
clearly, so far as circumstances permit, the
exact nature of the relief sought. The
application shall be accompanied by an
affidavit or affidavits in proof of the facts
referred to in the application. Such
affidavit or affidavits shall be restricted to
matters which are within the deponent's
own knowledge."

7. We have heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner, Sri Anup Trivedi,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Abhinav Gaur for respondent- 4, Sri
Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the
Development
Authority
and
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
State
-
respondents.

8. We have carefully perused the
judgement of Supreme Court in Dwarka
Nath (supra). The said extract shows that
the Court has considered the sub rule 2 of
Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of Allahabad High
Court Rules, which deals with the
procedure of writ under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution. In that case, the
dispute was with regard to the verification
clause whether the amendment was made
on the basis of personal knowledge or on
the basis of perusal of record. Supreme
Court has quoted the entire affidavit in its
judgement.

9. In the present case, the matter is in
respect of defective affidavit as the
deponent's name has wrongly shown in the
affidavit. This defect in the affidavit has
referable to Chapter IV, which deals with
the affidavits and oath commissioners.
Chapter IV, Rule 18 deals with the
corrections of the affidavit, which is
extracted above. A perusal of Rule 18
shows that it clearly provide that no
interlineation, alteration or erasure shall be
made in an affidavit after it has been
sworn.
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. In our view, the nature of
mistake
in
the
affidavit
requires
correction in the affidavit. It was not a
matter of verification of the affidavit.
Hence, in view of clear prohibition that
after the affidavit sworn, it cannot be
corrected. In the present case, Rule 18
of Chapter IV is attracted. Accordingly
no correction is permissible, if there is
no defect in the affidavit. But as held
by Supreme Court in Dwarka Nath
(supra) a defect in verification clause
whether an affidavit has been sworn on
the basis of personal knowledge or on
perusal
of
document,
it
can
be
corrected by giving opportunity to the
petitioner to rectify the mistake.

11. In view of the said fact, the
learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
the leave of this Court to withdraw this
writ petition to file better affidavit.

12. The leave is granted.

13. The writ petition is dismissed
with the liberty to file a fresh writ
petition.
----------
(2020)02ILR A440

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA,
J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 36047 of 2016

Ram Autar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Birendra Singh, Sri P.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Ghan Shyam, Sri Rajesh
Kumar Jaiswal, S.C., Sri Vikas Budhwar

Application for retail outlet of Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation
-rejected-lease
agreement does not contain any sub lease
clause-apart from original lessor-two other
persons were co-sharers in the said land-this
facts
not
disclosed-this
corretion
not
permissible after submission of form-impugned
order perfect-W.P. dismissed.

Cases Cited-

1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and
others
Vs.
Swapnil
Singh,
Civil
Appeal
no.69286929/2015

2. Smt. Sunita Gupta Vs. Union of India and
others reported in 2009 (7) ADJ 534 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2. Sri R. K. Jaiswal learned counsel
has
accepted
notice
on
behalf
of
respondent no. 1 and Sri Vikas Budhwar,
learned counsel has put his appearance on
behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.

3. Sri Ghanshyam, Advocate, has
filed an application for impleadment on
behalf of newly added respondent Smt.
Jyoti Yadav w/o Sri Prashant Kumar
Yadav.

4. The petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition challenging the order
dated 09.07.2016 passed by the Chief
Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited, 85/4, Ispat Bhawan
3rd Floor, Sanjay Place, Agra/respondent
no. 3 with further prayer to issue a