Article 226 affidavit verification requires court-prescribed procedure; a notarial affidavit is insufficient unless rules expressly permit it.

Affidavits for Article 226 writ proceedings must be verified and filed in the manner prescribed by the Court's rules; a notarial affirmation alone is not sufficient unless those rules expressly allow it or the Court directs otherwise. Although a Notary Public may administer oaths and take affidavits for notarial purposes under the Notaries Act, 1952, that power does not automatically make such affidavits valid for writ practice. Sections 139 and 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were not treated as validating the affidavit for this purpose. The notarial affidavit was therefore not a proper affidavit for the proceeding.

---

---

Issues: Whether an affidavit affirmed before a Notary Public could be treated as a proper affidavit for a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The rules governing petitions under Article 226 required verification and filing of affidavits before the appropriate officer of the Court, and they did not contemplate affirmation before a Notary Public. Section 8 of the Notaries Act, 1952 empowered a Notary to administer oaths and take affidavits for notarial purposes, but that did not by itself make every notarial affidavit acceptable in writ proceedings. Sections 139 and 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were considered, but the proceeding under Article 226 was treated as outside the scope of those provisions for the purpose of validating such affidavits under the Court's writ rules.

Conclusion: An affidavit affirmed before a Notary Public was held not to be a proper affidavit for use in the Article 226 proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing writ rules require affidavits to be verified and filed in the manner prescribed by the Court, a notarial affirmation cannot be treated as sufficient unless the rules expressly permit it or the Court directs otherwise.

---