Court orders department to register stay petition under Civil Procedure Code, dismisses Stamp Reporter's objection. Diplomatic Officer's jurisdiction not in question.

The court directed the department to accept and register the stay petition, emphasizing the applicability of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to writ proceedings regarding the affirmation of affidavits. The court found the objection raised by the Stamp Reporter unfounded and instructed the department to proceed with the registration of the petition. The court clarified that the jurisdiction of the Diplomatic Officer endorsing the affidavit was not under consideration in this case, acknowledging the assistance provided by the Amicus Curiae.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Objection to registering the stay petition due to affirmation of affidavit before an Attache (Passport), High Commission of India, Singapore.
2. Applicability of provisions of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948.
3. Relevance of prior judgments and rules regarding affirmation of affidavits in writ petitions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Objection to Registering the Stay Petition:

The primary issue was the objection raised by the Stamp Reporter regarding the registration of a stay petition because the supporting affidavit was affirmed before the Attache (Passport), High Commission of India, Singapore. The department declined to accept the petition for registration due to this affirmation, which was not in accordance with the usual practice within the jurisdiction of the High Court.

2. Applicability of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948:

The appellant relied on the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948, particularly Section 3, which allows diplomatic or consular officers to administer oaths and take affidavits abroad, making them as effectual as if done by lawful authority within a state. The court recognized the applicability of this statute, as affirmed in the case of In Re: K.K. Ray (Private) Ltd. (AIR 1967 Cal 636), which established that affidavits affirmed before diplomatic or consular officers abroad are valid and admissible.

3. Relevance of Prior Judgments and Rules:

The court examined several prior judgments and rules to address the objection:

- In Sudebi Sundari Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (AIR 1983 Cal. 1), it was held that affirmation of an affidavit before a Notary Public was impermissible in writ petitions. However, this judgment was based on the rules prevailing at that time, which did not specifically provide for the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to writ proceedings.

- The court noted that the Writ Rules were subsequently altered, and new rules effective from 23rd May 1986, and further changes in 1999, allowed the applicability of the CPC to writ proceedings. Rule 53 of the Writ Rules now provides that the provisions of the CPC shall be followed in all proceedings under Article 226, as far as applicable.

- The Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Teja Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 169) supported the applicability of the CPC to writ proceedings, provided the writ rules did not contain contrary provisions.

- The court also referred to the case of Ajit Sanyal v. Basiruddin Mondal [1982(1) CLJ 483], which held that even though the procedure regarding suits is not applicable to writ proceedings, the court could adopt such procedures if necessary.

Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the objection raised by the Stamp Reporter was unfounded. The provisions of the CPC pertaining to the administration of oaths for affirming affidavits are applicable in writ proceedings, and there is no exclusionary provision in the current Writ Rules against affirmation before a notary public or a diplomatic officer.

Conclusion:

The court directed the department to accept and register the stay petition if it was otherwise in order. The court clarified that the question of the power or jurisdiction of the Diplomatic Officer who endorsed the affidavit was not an issue before them. The court also expressed appreciation for the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae.

Order:

The department was instructed to accept and register the stay petition, and the file was sent down to the department with the court's order. The court noted that if the respondents wished to challenge this finding, they would be heard after the petition is listed.

---