Judgement HANSARIA, C.J. (Acting ) : - A point of some importance regarding the practice prevalent in this Court relating to filing of petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been raised in this application. The point for determination is whether an Advocates clerk can swear an affidavit which is required to accompany a writ petition. In view of the importance of the matter, notices were issued to the President and the Secretary of the High Court Bar Association to hear them and other learned members of the Bar who wanted to intervene. Pursuant this notice, the President of the Bar Association, Shri A.R. Barooah, appeared and so too some other members. The President and Secretary of the Advocates Clerks Association also intervened and Shri B. K. Das addressed arguments on behalf of the Association. 2. Shri Barooah drew our attention to R.804(4) of the Civil Rules and Orders framed by this Court as per which provision a licensed clerk of a pleader or mukhtiar is allowed only to identify persons verifying affidavits before the Sheristedar. As to this provision, the submission of Shri Das was that as the procedure provided in the Civil P.C. has no applicability to any proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution, vide Explanation to S. 141 of the Code, what has been provided in R.804(4) would not stand in the way of Advocates clerk discharging the aforesaid duty in the High Court. We would accept this submission of Shri Das. 3. Shri Barooah then referred to R.3(1) finding place in Chap. XIV of the Rules framed by this Court which provision has defined "licensed clerk" to mean "a clerk, other than an articled clerk, who is employed by an advocate of the High Court in connection with his legal business". It was contended by Shri Uzir that swearing in of affidavits would not come within the purview of "legal business " of an Advocate. We would demur to accept this broad submission made by Shri Uzir inasmuch as filing of a proper petition sworn by proper person is definitely a part of legal businessof an advocate. If in discharge of this duty, the advocate seems satisfied that swearing of an affidavit by his clerk would meet the requirements of law, we think he can definitely call upon his clerk to swear the affidavit. 4. If in discharge of this duty, the advocate seems satisfied that swearing of an affidavit by his clerk would meet the requirements of law, we think he can definitely call upon his clerk to swear the affidavit. 4. In support of his submission that an Advocates clerk cannot swear an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Barooah referred to Ratan Chandra v. Adhar Biswas, AIR 1952 Cal 72 , in para 11 of which it was stated that though the petitioner sought issue of a writ of mandamus, the petition was not verified by the affidavit of the petitioner, but had been so done by the Tadbirkarak of the petitioner. In this paragraph reference was made to decision in Surendra Nath v. State of West Bengal, (1951) 55 Cal WN 255 : ( AIR 1951 Cal 396 ), wherein it was held that the English principle of prerogative writ of mandamus as embodied in Ss.45 and 46 of the Specific Relief Act should be followed in applications for mandamus under Art.226. Reference was also made in this paragraph to P.K. Banerjee v. L.J. Simonds, AIR 1947 Cal 307, wherein it was held that an affidavit by a Manager was not sufficient compliance with S.46 of the Specific Relief Act. Such an application was held to be not maintainable. As to this decision, it may be pointed out that S.46 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, has specifically stated that every application under S.45 must be founded on affidavit of the person injured. As such, what has been stated in S.46 may not be fully applicable to an application filed under Art.226 of the Constitution. This apart, what has been stated about an application praying for issue of writ of mandamus may not apply to other forms of writ. Further, it has been pointed out in Basappa v. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440 , that we may not look back to the early history or the procedural technicalities of the writ in English law nor feel oppressed by any difference or change of opinion expressed in any particular case of English Judges so long as we keep to the broad principle of fundamental principle that regulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of granting writs in English law. 5. 5. Our attention was also invited by Shri Barooah to Barium Chemicals Limited v. Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 295 , in para 57 of which it was stated that slipshod verifications of affidavits would not do-they should be really modelled on the line of O.19, R.3, Civil P.C. and that where an averment is not based on personal knowledge, the source of information should be clearly deposed. As to this decision, the contention of Shri Das was that the observations finding place in para 57 were relatable to a case where averments of mala fide had been made, and the same should not be made applicable to other averments made in a writ petition. In so far as the allegations of mala fide are concerned, Shri Das fairly agreed that the same have to be verified by a person having direct knowledge of the same. In this connection, Shri Das himself fairly referred to Sukhwinder v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 65 , wherein as regards the allegations relating to mala fide it was stated that the same were "correct to the best of my knowledge". This sort of affidavit was said to be no affidavit at all. In saying so, the Court referred to O.19, R.3 and pointed out that it was incumbent upon the deponent to disclose the nature and source of his knowledge with sufficient particularity. The necessity of modelling the verification of an affidavit on the lines of O. 19, R.3, was also emphasised in State of Bombay v. Purushottam, AIR 1952 SC 317 , wherein also it was stated that when the matter deposed to is not based on personal knowledge the source of information should be clearly deposed. 6. In view of what has been stated above, we have no doubt that an affidavit has to be verified by a person having direct knowledge of the facts averred in the petition if there be any allegation of mala fide or malice in fact. Question is whether in other cases also the affidavit has to be by the person having direct and best knowledge of the averments made in the petition. 7. In this connection Shri Chaliha, learned Government Advocate, brought to our notice the note finding place below R.7 of Chap. Question is whether in other cases also the affidavit has to be by the person having direct and best knowledge of the averments made in the petition. 7. In this connection Shri Chaliha, learned Government Advocate, brought to our notice the note finding place below R.7 of Chap. IV of the High Court Rules which has stated that the affidavit required to be annexed to the application may be "by any person having cognizance of the facts stated ". According to Shri Uzir the expression "any person" would exclude an advocates clerk. We do not think if this broad submission can be accepted as it may be that in a case an advocates clerk has cognizance of the facts stated. Though in this connection Shri Uzir referred to Harbans Lal v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railways AIR 1960 All 164, all that has been stated in para 11 of this judgment is that an allegation should not be made by a counsel without ascertaining whether the client was telling truth or not and such an allegation should not be permitted to be sworn as true to the personal knowledge of the client unless the counsel is really so satisfied. From this it does not follow that an advocates clerk cannot swear an affidavit if the facts be really true to his personal knowledge. 8. Shri Das drew our attention to certain rules relating to affidavits contained in Chap. IV of the High Court Rules. Rule 25 of this Chapter visualises that an affidavit may be filed by a person other than a plaintiff or a defendant, inasmuch as it reads : - "Every person, other than a plaintiff or defendant in a suit in which the application is made, making any affidavit, shall be described in such a manner as will serve to identify him clearly, that is to say, by the statement of his full name, the name of his father, his profession or trade, and the place of his residence". Shri Das also urged that if swearing in of affidavits by the petitioner himself is insisted, the same would cause hardship to those indigent and infirm persons who are not in a position to travel from the remote areas to swear affidavit. Shri Das also urged that if swearing in of affidavits by the petitioner himself is insisted, the same would cause hardship to those indigent and infirm persons who are not in a position to travel from the remote areas to swear affidavit. It was contended by Shri Das that the object of Art. 226 is to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy to an aggrieved party, as stated in B.M. Patel v. N.K. Barot, (1974) 2 SCC 706 : ( AIR 1974 SC 2105 ). 9. Even so,there can be no denial that an affidavit has to be sworn-in by a person who is fully acquainted with the facts mentioned in the petition. A writ petition is decided on the basis of averments made in it, and the court accepts them because the averments are supported by an affidavit to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court about their correctness. It is well known that courts give more weights to those averments which are verified as true to knowledge. Now, if the affidavit is by some person other than the one having direct knowledge, he shall have to state that the averment are true to his information derived from some other person ; and whether that person had direct knowledge about the facts or had himself been informed about these by some other persons would not be known from the affidavit. 10. Shri Agarwal who intervened in the matter submitted that the entire purpose of requiring an affidavit to verify about the correctness of the averments made in the petition is to see that in case the statement made in the petition be false, the person concerned could be prosecuted under S.191 of the Penal Code. The learned counsel is right in making this submission. This aspect of the matter requires that the affidavit should normally be by a person having direct knowledge, as in that case only prosecution would be meaningful as, where facts are verified as true to information without naming any person, as is usually done, no prosecution would succeed. Of course, if the name of the person giving information is disclosed as is required to be, the matter would be different. 11. All told, we are of the view that the best person to swear an affidavit is undoubtedly the petitioner himself, and normally an affidavit should be verified by him. Of course, if the name of the person giving information is disclosed as is required to be, the matter would be different. 11. All told, we are of the view that the best person to swear an affidavit is undoubtedly the petitioner himself, and normally an affidavit should be verified by him. In case the petitioner be ailing or infirm he can definitely depute somebody else who is in full know of things whose affidavits would satisfy the mind of the Court about the correctness of the averments made in the petition. It is too well known that when a writ petition is filed either the petitioner or somebody being in know of things comes to brief the counsel. In such a situation it should not be difficult to get the required affidavit verified by such a person. If an Advocates clerk has to verify the affidavit, all that he can say is that what has been, stated by him relating to the facts of the case is true to the information derived by him either from the petitioner or some tadbirkarak. Now, if the petitioner or tadbirkarak had come to brief the counsel, we do not find any reason as to why such a person should not be asked to verify the affidavit. It may be pointed out that provision of O.19 R.3 requires giving of source of information when the fact is not true to the knowledge of the deponent. In such a situation if the advocates clerk has merely to say what has been stated by him is true to the information supplied by the petitioner, as he shall have to say unless he has direct knowledge of the fact, the Court would not know whether the information supplied by the petitioner was true to his knowledge, or he himself in turn has derived the same from some other source. As affidavit of an Advocates clerk in such a situation cannot inspire full confidence in the mind of the Court about the correctness of the averments made in the petition. 12. May we point out that as per Note to R.7 of Chap. IV of the High Court Rules, the affidavit has to be by a person having "cognizance" of the facts. 12. May we point out that as per Note to R.7 of Chap. IV of the High Court Rules, the affidavit has to be by a person having "cognizance" of the facts. In Websters 20th Century Dictionary the meaning of the word "cognizance given, which is relevant for our purpose, is "the fact of being aware, participation, knowledge . In Chambers 20th Century Dictionary the meaning given is "knowledge or notice ". It is apparent that an advocates clerk would not be such a person. We would therefore hold that an affidavit enclosed with a writ petition containing allegation of mala fide has to be verified by a person having direct knowledge of the acts constituting malice in fact. As to other types of petitioners, affidavit should be verified either by the petitioner himself or by anybody else who is fully posted with the facts and circumstances of the case. We would not regard an advocates clerk as such a person. The necessity of affidavit by a proper person lies in fact that after all a writ petition is entirely decided on the basis of affidavit, filed by the parties and as such to assure the mind of the court about the correctness of the averments made it would be justified in asking an affidavit from a person having full knowledge of the facts of the case. The normal rule of giving the best evidence which is applicable in cape of civil suits and criminal trials should apply, according to us, to writ petitions as well. This order shall apply to the writ petition to be filed after 2 weeks. Order accordingly.