Uday Sinha, J. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexures 2 and 4 to the writ application. 2. The petitioner is a practising lawyer at Motihari in the judgeship of East Champaran. He is also a Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952. Under the said Act, the petitioner was granted a certificate, as contained in Annexure 1, to act as a Notary. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that upon the instructions of this Court, the District and Sessions Judge by order contained in Annexure 2 directed the petitioner to stop immediately to function as Oath Commissioner relating to judicial proceeding and to submit explanation before him as to why he had proceeded to act as such without appointment either by the High Court Or by the District and Sessions Judge. The order of the District and Sessions Judge contains a reference to a circular from the Registrar of this Court in regard to affirmation of affidavits. In this behalf the High Court stated that Shri Sidheshwar Prasad, Notary, having not been so appointed either by the High Court only the District and Sessions Judge, affidavits sworn before him should not be accepted by courts as affidavits in Judicial proceedings. 3. It appears that on receipt of Annexure 2, the petitioner filed a representation before the Registrar of this Court where in he prayed that the ban imposed upon. him in regard to administering of oath may be removed and he may be allowed to act as provided in section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, The representation of the petitioner, however, did not find favour and by Annexure 4, the petitioner was told that as he had not been empowered by the Court under section 3(2) of the Oaths Act, be was not competent to administer oath and affirmation for the purpose of affidavits in judicial proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the District and Sessions Judge and the rejection of his representation by the Registrar of this Court, has moved this Court by the present application. 5. It is not in controversy that the petitioner not has been appointed Notary under the Notaries Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the District and Sessions Judge and the rejection of his representation by the Registrar of this Court, has moved this Court by the present application. 5. It is not in controversy that the petitioner not has been appointed Notary under the Notaries Act. In terms of sub-section (1) (e) of section 8 of the Notaries Act, the petitioner is entitled to administer oath to or to take affidavit from any person. The Notaries Act came into being in 1952. Prior to this it was competent for Courts to authorise any person to administer oath and affirmations for the purpose of affidavits in terms of section 3 (2 of the Oaths Act. The enactment of the Notaries Act, however, widens the scope of a private individual who has received certificate of Notary to administer oath. In accordance with the object of the Notaries Act. Code of Civil Procedure was also suitably amended to make provision for administering of oath by Notaries. Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with oath on affidavits and by whom they are to he administered and in this section. sub-section. (aa) was introduced, the effect of which is that in the case of any affidavit under the Code any Notary appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 (Act 53 of 1952) may administer the oath to the deponent. Similarly in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the objective of Notaries Act found expression in section 297 where it was laid down that affidavits to be used before any court under the Code of Criminal Procedure may be sworn or affirmed before any Notary appointed under the Notaries Act. Those being the legal provision of section 3 (2) of the Oath Act, 1969. cannot be said to be the only provision in regard to administering of oaths for affirmation to affidavit". The object of Notaries administering oath having found expression in statute of the Parliament, namely, Code of Criminal procedure and Civil Procedure Code, they cannot be ignored. If the Oaths Act was taken to be the only Act in that behalf, the amendments referred to above in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure would be completely set at nought. If the Oaths Act was taken to be the only Act in that behalf, the amendments referred to above in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure would be completely set at nought. That cannot be the proper reading of the law in regard to Notaries In that view of the matter, the order of the Registrar holding that as the petitioner had not been appointed or empowered to administer oath in terms of the oaths Act, be was not competent to administer oath was clearly against the letters and content of section 139 (aa) of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 297 (1) c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. In that view of the matter, the petitioner was fully entitled to administer oath and to get affidavits sworn before him The value to be attached to affidavits sworn before him and the manner in which it is to be done is a different matter. The rules promulgated by the High Court in regard to swearing in of affidavits before the lower court will be fully in force but Notaries like the petitioner cannot be prevented from acting as Notaries. If the affidavits Sworn before the Notaries do not conform the rules regulating their conduct. the evidenciary value of those affidavits will be a matter for consideration before the courts where they are filed. In that view of the matter, the application must succeed. 7. For the reasons stated above, the application is allowed. Let a writ of certiorary issue to that effect quashing Annexures 2 and 4 to the writ application. Let a writ of mandamus also issue directing the District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran to forbear from interfering with the functions of the petitioner as enjoined upon him under the Notaries Act, 1952. There will be no order as to costs. I agree. Application allowed.