JUDGMENT James, J. - Chandra Shekher and Om Prakash, respectively the Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Praja Socialist Party of UP, confined in the District Jail of Meerut, made petitions of habeas corpus to this Court supported by affidavits, complaining that they had been unlawfully arrested and detained, and they alleged inter alia that the Addl. District Magistrate of Meerut had not passed any orders on their application for permission to hold a meeting, that on arrest by the Station Officer of Modinagar they were not told the cause of the arrest and that they were produced before the Magistrate long after the statutory period of twenty-four hours. On receipt of notice of the petitions Mr. Shri Ram, Addl Deputy Government Advo., on 23-1-1958 obtained ten day's time for receiving instructions as well as for ascertaining the facts. Today he has filed a counter-affidavit which purports to be on behalf of the State of UP. 2. We find that this counter-affidavit has been sworn by a person named Munshi Ram who describes himself as "Judicial Assistant (III), Collectorate, Meerut." He professes to have sworn paras 1 to 3 (which are not of material importance) of the counter-affidavit on his personal knowledge and paras 4 to 15 (which are of material importance) on the basis of certain papers. We must express surprise at a person like this being chosen by the State, or the executive authorities at Meerut, for filing the counter affidavit. No doubt we would have accepted Munshi Ram's affidavit had we reason to believe that he was the person responsible for refusing permission to the Petitioners for holding a meeting or for their arrest and confinement. But we have no reason whatsoever for believing so. He has manifestly no personal knowledge of the relevant points at issue nor of the authenticity of the papers relied upon by him. R. 12 of Chapter IV of the Rules of Court prescribes that "except on interlocutory applications, an affidavit shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able on his own knowledge to prove." Quite plainly, Munshi Ram does not fit this description, from which it follows that his counter affidavit cannot be acted upon by this Court. 3. The only official whose counter-affidavits would be in accordance with the above-quoted Rule would be the Addl. 3. The only official whose counter-affidavits would be in accordance with the above-quoted Rule would be the Addl. District Magistrate to whom the Petitioners allegedly made their application for permission, the Station Officer who arrested them and the Magistrate who passed the remand order in respect of them. Consequently these are the officials whose counter-affidavits on the relevant points should be filed before us, and to the credit of Mr. Shri Ram we should like to say that he agrees that this is the correct course. 4. Here we should like to draw attention to the growing tendency on the part of the State to get affidavits or counter-affidavits, intended to be filed on its behalf, sworn by petty officials or clerks who are neither in a position to have knowledge of the facts nor to give expression to the mind of the authority concerned: officers of the State are apparently not willing to shoulder the burden of the responsibility which rests on them and instead shift it on petty subordinates. On other occasions too this Court has had to express disapproval of this tendency. We place on record our strong disapproval in the instant case also, and we issue a firm warning that unless an affidavit or counter-affidavit conforms to R. 12 it is liable to be disregarded by the Court and the case of the party concerned going by default, and we venture to hope that officers of the State will make due note of our warning and display a greater sense of the responsibility cast on them. 5. Reverting to the present case, Mr. Shri Ram requests for seven day's time so that the officials of Meerut mentioned above may file fresh counter-affidavits. We accede to his request. Let the case be listed for hearing on Monday 10-2-1958, by which date the fresh counter-affidavits must be filed. We should like to make it clear that in the absence of such counter-affidavits the case is liable to be heard on the affidavits of the Petitioners alone. The Petitioners too should be produced before us on the date fixed. 6. Mr. Shri Ram finally requests for Munshi Ram's counter-affidavit to be returned to him. We have no objection to this.