# M/s Zasha Electrowaste Recycling Pvt. Ltd. Meerut U.P v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 349
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-25
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 626 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-zasha-electrowaste-recycling-pvt-ltd-meerut-u-p-v-u-o-i-ors-48529
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Practice & Procedure -
Affidavit - Allahabad High Court Rules -
Rule 12 of Chapter IV - Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 - Order XIX Rule 9 - An affidavit
which does not comply with the provisions of
the Allahabad High Court Rules/CPC, has no
probative value and is liable to be rejected.
(Para 8) (E-10)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. M/s Zasha Electrowaste Recycling Pvt. Ltd. Meerut U.P. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
349
therefore, requested that this advisory may
be circulated among all the concerned
officers for their guidance, and issues, if
any, in performance of the functionality
may
immediately
be
reported
to
cbicmitra.helpdesk@icegate.gov.in
for
necessary
resolution.
Copy
of
the
communication with ticket details may also
be
forwarded
to
this
office
at
dgschennai@icegate.gov.in
for
further
follow up.

 (K.V.S. Singh)
 Pr. Additional Director General"

11. We hope and trust that the GST
Council and authorities under the Central
Goods and Service Tax Act/States Goods
and Service Tax Act 2017 shall be sensitive
enough to address genuine problems of the
dealers including the problems being faced
in giving effect to the orders of appellate
authority, Tribunal and courts. We also
direct that the aforesaid Registration
Advisory No.07/2022, dated 23.3.2022
shall be circulated forthwith by the GST
Council amongst officers under the Act,
2017 as well as amongst association of
traders and industries and amongst Tax Bar
Associations at the district level in the state
of Uttar Pradesh.

12. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is disposed of .
----------
(2022)05ILR A349
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ Tax No. 626 of 2022
M/s Zasha Electrowaste Recycling Pvt.
Ltd. Meerut U.P. ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nishant Mishra, Sri Yashonidhi Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Dileep Chandra Mathur

A. Civil Law - Practice & Procedure -
Affidavit - Allahabad High Court Rules -
Rule 12 of Chapter IV - Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 - Order XIX Rule 9 - An affidavit
which does not comply with the provisions of
the Allahabad High Court Rules/CPC, has no
probative value and is liable to be rejected.
(Para 8) (E-10)
List of Cases cited:

1. Bharat Singh & ors. Vs St. of Har. AIR 1988
SC 2181

2. St. of Bombay Vs Purushottam Jog Naik AIR
1952 SC 317

3. Smt. Savithramma Vs Cicil Naronha & anr.
AIR 1988 SC 1987 (Para 2)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

2.

Personal
affidavit
dated
25.02.2022 of Sri Pradyumn Tripathi,
Additional
Director
General,
DGGI,
Meerut Zonal Unit, Meerut has been filed
today, which contains 12 paragraphs and all
the 12 paragraphs have been sworn as
under :

"I, the deponent above named, do
hereby
swear
that
the
contents
of
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
paragraphs nos. 1-12 of this affidavit are
true to my personal knowledge and are
based on perusal of records; which all I
believe to be true that no part of it is false
and nothing material has been concealed in
it."

3. Rule 12 of Chapter IV of the
Allahabad High Court Rules provides that
how an affidavit shall be sworn by the
deponent. For ready reference Rule 12 of
Chapter IV of the Allahabad High Court
Rules, is reproduced below :

"12. Facts to be within the
deponent's knowledge or source to be
stated-
Except
on
interlocutory
applications, an affidavit shall be confined
to such facts as the deponent is able of his
own knowledge to prove.

On
an
interlocutory
application when a particular fact is
not
within
the
deponent's
own
knowledge, but is based on his belief or
information received from others which
he believes to be true, the deponent
shall use the expression" I am informed
and verily believe such information to
be true", or words to that effect and
shall
sufficiently
describe
for
the
purpose of identification, the person or
persons from whom his information was
received.

When any fact is stated on the
basis of information derived from a
document,
full
particulars
of
the
document shall be stated and the
deponent shall verify that he believes
such information to be true."

4. Order XIX Rule 3 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 and Order XIX Rule
9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as
inserted by High Court amendment, are
reproduced below :

"Order XIX Rule 3

Matters to which affidavits shall
be confined - (1) Affidavits shall be
confined to such facts as the deponent is
able of his own knowledge to prove, except
on interlocutory applications, on which
statements of his belief may be admitted,
provided that the grounds thereof are
stated.

(2) The costs of every affidavit
which shall unnecessarily set forth matters
of hearsay or argumentative matter, or
copies of or extracts from documents, shall
(unless the Court otherwise directs) be paid
by the party filing the same.

Order XIX Rule 9

"Except
in
interlocutory
proceedings, affidavits shall strictly be
confined to such facts as the declarant is
able of his own knowledge to prove. In
interlocutory
proceedings,
when
the
particular fact is not within the declarant's
own
knowledge, but
is
stated
from
information obtained from others, the
declarant shall use the expression "I am in
formed", and, if such be the case, "and
verily believe it to be true", and shall state
the name and address of, and sufficiently
describe for the purposes of identification,
the person or persons from whom he
received such information. When the
application or the opposition thereto rests
on facts disclosed in documents or copies
of documents produced from any Court of
Justice or other source, the declarant shall
state what is the source from which they
were produced, and his information and
belief as to the truth of the facts disclosed
in such documents. (22-5-1915)."

5. The aforesaid affidavit dated
25.02.2022 filed by Sri Pradyumn Tripathi,
Additional
Director
General,
DGGI,
Meerut Zonal Unit, Meerut, does not
comply with the requirements of a valid
5 All. M/s Zasha Electrowaste Recycling Pvt. Ltd. Meerut U.P. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
351
affidavit as provided in Rule 12 of Chapter
IV
of
the
Allahabad
High
Court
Rules/Order XIX Rule 9 C.P.C.

6. As noticed in paragraph 2 above,
the deponent of the aforesaid personal
affidavit
dated
25.02.2022
has
not
verified/sworn
paragraphs
either
on
personal knowledge or on the basis of
information received from others or on the
basis of information derived from the
documents.

7. Affidavit is a mode of placing
evidence before the Court. Party may prove
a fact or facts by means of affidavit before
this Court but such affidavit should be in
accordance Rules. The Rules enable the
Court to find out as to whether it would be
safe to act on such evidence and to enable
the court to know as to what facts are based
in the affidavits on the basis of personal
knowledge, information and belief as this is
relevant for the purpose of appreciating the
evidence placed before the Court, in the
form of affidavit.

8. It is only on the basis of
verification, it is possible to decide the
genuineness
and
authenticity
of
the
allegations and the deponent can be held
responsible for the allegations made in the
affidavit. It is, therefore, necessary that the
person making averments in the affidavit
must disclose as to what facts are true to his
personal knowledge, what facts are true on
the basis of information received from
others which he believed to be true and
what facts are based on information derived
from documents. Full particulars of the
document needs to be stated and the
deponent has to verify that the information
is believed to be true. An affidavit which
does not comply with the aforesaid
provisions of the Allahabad High Court
Rules/CPC, has no probative value and is
liable to be rejected.

9. In the case of Bharat Singh and
others Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1988 SC
2181, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down
the law that how in Writ Petition or in
Counter Affidavit the facts need to be
pleaded and proved. The relevant portion of
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Bharat Singh(supra) is
reproduced below :-

"In our opinion, when a point
which is ostensibly a point of law is required
to be substantiated by facts, the party
raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner,
must plead and prove such facts by evidence
which must appear from the writ petition
and if he is the respondent, from the counteraffidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the
evidence in support of such facts is not
annexed to the writ petition or to the
counter, affidavit, as the case may be, the
court will not entertain the point. In this
context, it will not be out of place to point
out that in this regard there is a distinction
between a pleading under the Code of Civil
Procedure and a writ petition or a counteraffidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a
plaint or a written statement, the facts and
not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a
writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not
only the facts but also the evidence in proof
of such facts have to be pleaded and
annexed to it." (Emphasis supplied by us)

10. In the case of State of Bombay
Vs. Purushottam Jog Naik AIR 1952 SC
317 a Constitution Bench considering the
importance of verification of an affidavit
observed (at p.319 of AIR) :

"We wish, however, to observe
that the verification of the affidavits
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
produced here is defective. The body of the
affidavit discloses that certain matters were
known to the Secretary who made the
affidavit
personally.
The
verification
however states that everything was true to
the best of his information and belief. We
point this out as slipshod verification of
this type might well in a given case lead to
a rejection of the affidavit. Verification
should invariably be modelled on the lines
of Order XIX, Rule 3, of the Civil
Procedure Code, whether the Code applies
in terms or not. And when the matter
deposed to is not based on personal
knowledge the sources of information
should be clearly disclosed."

11. In the case of Smt. Savithramma
Vs. Cicil Naronha & Anr. AIR 1988 SC
1987 (para 2) Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the importance of verification of
affidavit and rejection of affidavit in the
absence of proper verification and held as
under :-

"......Affidavit
is
a
mode
of
placing evidence before the Court. A party
may prove a fact or facts by means of
affidavit before this Court but such affidavit
should be in accordance with Order XI
Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules.
The purpose underlying Rules 5 and 13 of
Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules is to
enable the Court to find out as to whether it
would be safe to act on such evidence and
to enable the court to know as to what facts
are based in the affidavit on the basis of
personal knowledge, information and belief
as this is relevant for the purpose of
appreciating the evidence placed before the
Court, in the form of affidavit. The
importance of verification has to be
judged by the purpose for which it is
required. It is only on the basis or
verification, it is possible to decide the
genuineness and authenticity of the
allegations and the deponent can be held
responsible for the allegations made in the
affidavit. In this Court evidence in support
of the statements contained in writ
petition,
special
leave
petitions,
applications and other miscellaneous
matters, is accepted in the form of
affidavit filed by the parties concerned. It
is therefore necessary that the party
stating facts must disclose as to what facts
are true to his personal knowledge,
information or belief. If the statement of
fact is based on information the source of
information must be disclosed in the
affidavit. An affidavit which does not
comply with the provisions of Order XT of
the Supreme Court Rules, has no
probative value and it is liable to be
rejected. In a matter where allegations of
mala fides or disobedience of the Court's
order are made against a person or party it
is all the more necessary that the person
filing affidavit in this regard must take care
to verify the facts stated in the affidavit
strictly in accordance with the Rules 5 and
13 of Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules.
"

12. Since the aforesaid personal
affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2
by Sri Pradyumn Tripathi, Additional
Director General, DGGI, Meerut Zonal
Unit, Meerut, does not apply with the
provisions of Rule 12 of Chapter IV of the
Allahabad High Court Rules/Order XIX
Rule 9 C.P.C., therefore, it is liable to be
rejected and accordingly it is rejected.
However, we grant one more opportunity to
the respondent no.2 to file a proper
affidavit within three days stating true and
correct facts.

13. Put up as a fresh case on
30.05.2022 at 10 A.M.
5 All. R.S. Filling Station Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. Vs. Dispute Resolution Panel C/O I.O.C. & Ors. 353
----------
(2022)05ILR A353
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 1262 of 2020

R.S. Filling Station Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Dispute Resolution Panel C/O I.O.C. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Tushar Hirwani, Amrendra Singh, Ashok
Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Manish Jauhari

(A)
Administrative
Law
-
in
the
administrative
and
the
quasi-judicial
decision making process - any decision
taken upon misreading of a document - in
ignorance of a document and without
recording reasons - would clearly qualified
as
arbitrary,
perverse
and
hit
by
wednesbury
arbitrariness
-
denial
of
opportunity of hearing also makes the
order as violative of principles of natural
justice. (Para - 37,38)

(B)
Administrative
Law
-
alternative
remedy
is
not
an
absolute
bar
-
administrative/quasi-judicial
authorities
are obliged to record reasons - show -
cause notice issued with a premeditation
would entitle the petitioner to approach
this Court in exercise of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(Para - 26)

Contract as well as dealership of petitioner
(retail out dealer ) cancelled - basis of
termination - report- suspicion expressed with
regard to two pulsar cards - report of OEM
MIDCO - allegation with regard to loss of
reputation of corporation in view of wide
reporting in print and electronic media -
impugned order passed on a clear misreading of
inspection report - clear misreading of report of
MIDCO - non-consideration of vital piece of
evidence - improper invocation of deeming
provision under clause 5.1.4 of MDG .(Para -
1,29,38)

HELD:- Writ petition would lie against an order,
which is perverse and which cannot satisfy the
test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Impugned order cannot be sustained and is set
aside with directions to the respondent -
corporation to permit the petitioner to run the
retail outlet forthwith subject to the petitioner
complying with the other requirements for
dispensing the petroleum products as are
required under the Act and the Rules. (Para -
30,38 )

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of
Trademarks, Mumbai & ors. , (1998) 8 SCC 1

2.
Maharashtra
Chess
Association
Vs
U.O.I.,2019 SCC OnLine SC 932

3. J. Ashoka Vs University of Agricultural
Sciences , (2017) 2 SCC 609

4. Ahmad Ullah Vs U.O.I. & ors. , Writ C
No.25502 of 2019

5. Allahabad Bank & ors. Vs Krishna Narayan
Tewari , (2017) 2 SCC 308

6. Rakesh Kumar Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
,2019 SCC Online All 4004

7. Gour Chandra Dutta Vs U.O.I. & ors. , 2015
SCC OnLine Bom 4883

8. Siemens Ltd. Vs St. of Mah. & ors. , (2006)
12 SCC 33

9. M/s. Laltu Fillings Station Vs U.O.I. & ors. ,
2016 SCC OnLine Cal 626