Asha Saxena Vs. U.P. S.E.B. Ex. Engineer, Electricity Kanpur(N)

.....on order xix rule 3 of the code of civil procedure, or order xi of the supreme court rules, 1966. the relevant portion of the petitioner's affidavit runs as under: "1.that i am the petitioner in the above writ petition and am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. order xi of the supreme court rules 1966 deals with affidavits. another constitution bench of this court in a. k. k. nambiar v. union of india and another, air 1970 sc 652, held as follows: "the appellant filed an affidavit in support of the petition. neither the petition nor the affidavit was verified. the affidavits which were filed in answer to the appellant's petition were also not verified. in the case of virendra kumar saklecha v. jagjiwan and others, [(1972) 1 scc 826], this court while dealing with an election petition dealt with the importance of disclosure of source of information in an affidavit. the purpose of rules 5 and 13 of the supreme court rules, set out above, has been explained by this court in the case of smt. savitramma v. cicil naronha and another, air 1988 scc 1987. this court held, in para 2 at page 1988, as follows: "...in the case of statements based on information the deponent shall disclose the source of his information. 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. in the instant case, the petitioner invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court under article 32, without filing a proper affidavit as required in terms of order xix rule 3 of the code. thereupon a detailed affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. the petitioner, therefore, largely relied on information received from an accused in a criminal case while he filed his petition under article 32. in view of such disclosures in the affidavit of the police authorities as also in the..........3. it appears that the legal representatives of the employee and the original petitioner (husband and wife) are still in the possession of quarter as is evident from their address given in the affidavit and substitution application filed on 10.08.2009. this is horrible state of affairs.4. if official quarter is not vacated after retirement, penal rent may very well be charged. retiral dues cannot be claimed unless official quarter is vacated. 5. accordingly, petitioners are directed to vacate forthwith the quarter in question. in case within two weeks it is not done, s.s.p. kanpur nagar shall 2immediately get vacated the quarter in question and handover the same to the authorities of the electricity board (now power corporation) and send compliance report to this court within a month. respondents are directed to adjust such penal rent as is permissible under the rules from the unpaid retiral dues of late sri rajeshwar nath and rest of the amount shall be recovered like arrears of land revenue from the substituted petitioners by the collector, kanpur on the application of respondents which may be filed in this regard.6. writ petition is accordingly disposed of.7. office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to sri s.p. mishra, learned standing counsel for sending the same immediately to the s.s.p., kanpur nagar.