JUDGMENT : B.L. YADAV, J. 1. This petition unfolds a very pathetic story how the litigation on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh is being prosecuted in the High Court. Even though in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, notices are received on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh and its different Departments, but what to say of taking steps voluntarily, with a view to safeguard the interest of the State of U.P., even if some direction is given by the High Court, that is also not complied with. No counter affidavits are filed either at initial stage or when petition has been admitted and notices have been ordered to be issued. The officials entrusted with the litigation do not take even least interest even if heavy stakes are involved from the point of view of State. The directions from the Court from time to time fall on the deaf ears of the State instrumentalities. It may be emphasized that on 6th October, 1980, on the date when the present petition was filed before Division Bench a direction was given by the Court to the Standing counsel that a Counter Affidavit be filed by 28th October, 1980, and the petition was to be listed on that date. But no Counter Affidavit was filed by that date and the petition instead of being listed on 28th October, 1980, was listed on 10-12-1980. The Division Bench while admitting the petition and granting stay stated that no counter affidavit has been filed inspite of time being granted. The Court directed the Standing Counsel again on 10-12-80 to file counter affidavit within a month, but till today after about twelve years, no counter affidavit has been filed and averments in the petition have not been controverted. 2. The instant petition has been filed by Smt. Somlata Goyal, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the relief sought is for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the requisition notice dated 4th of September, 1980, (Annexure-6) issued under Sections 3 and 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Accommodation Requisition Act (for short the Act). 3. The factual Matrix of the case is that the Petitioner is the owner of the accommodation D-160. Kamla Nagar, Agra, which was let out to Sri A.C. Nanda, Asstt. 3. The factual Matrix of the case is that the Petitioner is the owner of the accommodation D-160. Kamla Nagar, Agra, which was let out to Sri A.C. Nanda, Asstt. Income Tax Commissioner (Agra) who was transferred to Ahmedabad, as the accommodation was retained by the tenant, a notice under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, was served upon the owner and also upon the occupier. But it has been stated that no notice of the requisition under the Act was served on the owner vide para 10 of the petition. 4. A civil suit No. 383 of 1978 was filed by the Petitioner, the owner, against the tenant, seeking relief for permanent injunction not to handover the possession to any body else other than the owner. On 24th of May, 1980, a direction was given by the Munsif Agra, restraining the tenant Sri Nanda from delivering the possession of the premises to any other person other than the owner (Petitioner). For requisition the notice ought to have been served on the owner. 5. The facts in the petition has not been controverted by filing any counter affidavit. The Division Bench on 6th of October, 1980, directed the Standing Counsel to obtain instruction and file a counter affidavit on 28th of October, 1980. But no counter affidavit was filed even after the order dated 6th of October, 1980. The petition was listed for admission on 10th of December, 1980, after more than two months, before another Division Bench and the following order was passed. Despite opportunity having been given, the Respondents have not been able to file counter affidavit. The facts mentioned in the writ petition justify order for its admission. Admit. Issue notice. Learned Standing Counsel who represents the Respondent may file a counter affidavit within a period of one month from today's date. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. Sd/- H.N.S. V.K.K. 6. It is obvious that no counter affidavit was filed inspite of sufficient opportunity being afforded to the Standing Counsel. As no counter affidavit was filed the averments in the petition are to be accepted as correct and the Division Bench admitted the writ petition and notices were issued to the Respondents on 10th of December, 1980. Till today, after about 12 years, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh or the District Magistrate, Agra. As no counter affidavit was filed the averments in the petition are to be accepted as correct and the Division Bench admitted the writ petition and notices were issued to the Respondents on 10th of December, 1980. Till today, after about 12 years, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh or the District Magistrate, Agra. It has to be emphasised that the litigation on behalf of the State is not on behalf of a private citizen but it is a litigation on behalf of the entire citizens of the State and in a democratic set up like ours, whether such a negligent approach towards public or Govt. litigation is justified. 7. Sri Swami Dayal, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that notices under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act were not served on the Petitioner, the owner of the accommodation. After the direction of the Civil Court dated 24th of May 1980, (Anaexure-4) tenant was directed not to deliver the possession to any body else, other than the landlord. 8. Consequently, notice, if at all, under the Act ought to have been served upon the Petitioner, the owner of the accommodation, but no such notice was served. The State of Uttar Pradesh or the District Magistrate, Agra, is not interested to contest the petition or to deny the allegations made in the petition, hence there is no justification for not relying upon the uncontroverted averments made in the writ petition. 9. Neither any counter affidavit has been filed nor the Standing Counsel has got his file of this case, nor any assistance were rendered by him. The point for our determination is as to whether an uncontroverted affidavit, under the facts and circumstances of the petition can not be relied upon. 10. u/s 30 of the CPC 1908, (for short the Code), it is the general power of any civil Court to order that any fact may be proved by an affidavit. Under Order IX Rule I and Order XIX Rule I of the Code, a Court may direct that any particular fact or facts may be proved by an affidavit. 10. u/s 30 of the CPC 1908, (for short the Code), it is the general power of any civil Court to order that any fact may be proved by an affidavit. Under Order IX Rule I and Order XIX Rule I of the Code, a Court may direct that any particular fact or facts may be proved by an affidavit. Even though, these provisions have to" be read, as exception to the provision of Order XVIII Rule IV of the Code which provides that evidence of the witness in attendance shall be taken orally in open Court, in the presence and under the personal direction and superintendence of the judge. It means that the evidence of the witnesses can not ordinarily be taken by an affidavit. The provision of Order XIX J is an exception to Order XVIII Rule IV, which provides that ordinarily a fact has to be proved by oral evidence, but it is open to the Court to direct that any particular fact may be proved by an affidavit. 11. Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is governed by the procedure laid down under the Rules of the Court 1952 (Compendiously the Rules). The Rule -XII of Chapter IX of the Rules, provides that the applicants set out (under the Rules) including an application to obtain interim relief or any. other application, which is required by these rules to be supported by an affidavit, shall be accompanied by an affidavit and Rules XIII provided that any person opposing such application or showing cause against the rule, may bring before the Court any fact not contained in the application by an affidavit. 12. In view of the provisions of Chapter XXIII Rule I of the Rules of the Court, any writ petition under Article 226 has to be accompanied by an affidavit, verifying contents of the application of the writ petition. In case nobody from the side of the Respondent is interested in controverting those averments in the affidavit, he has to file a counter affidavit. In our opinion in case no counter affidavit has been filed, except in exceptional cases where there are inherent infirmities in the petition, the averments in the petition filed by the Petitioner have to be relied upon. In our opinion in case no counter affidavit has been filed, except in exceptional cases where there are inherent infirmities in the petition, the averments in the petition filed by the Petitioner have to be relied upon. In the instant case, as stated above, Respondent did not file any affidavit in reply to the affidavit in support of the writ petition inspite of repeated directions given by this Court. This evinces that the Respondent including District Magistrate and State of Uttar Pradesh is not interested in controverting averments made in the writ petition. At the same time, we are at a loss to understand as to why not after issuing notice for requisition under the Act, writ petition was contested and counter affidavit was not filed. 13. In Juggi Lal Kamla Pat v. Ram Janki Gupta AIR 1962 All. 411 The Division Bench of this Court ruled (in para 20 page 411). We do not think it is open to a party to brush aside the averments of his opponent by merely stating that the allegations were untrue. A statement on oath whether true or false, has to be met by a counter affidavit in reply or by challenging the statement by cross-examining the deponent. If that is not done it would be presumed that the allegations, if untrue, would have been rebutted by the other side. 14. In Mehta v. Commissioner Income Tax AIR 1956 SC 556, it was observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court that in order to challenge the correctness of the affidavit filed by the Petitioner, revenue authorities, must file a counter affidavit otherwise, the affidavit filed by the Petitioner was to be accepted as true on its face value. 15. In M/s. Simplex Conceret piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S. Ahmad, 1977 AWC 644 a Division Bench (Consisting of Hon. M N. Shukla, J. and K C. Agarwal, J. as their lordships then were) held as follows : There is no rule of law or equity which prevents a Court from not accepting an affidavit if it is intrinsically worthy of non acceptance merely because no counter affidavit has been filed. As we shall presently point out, the allegation made in defendant's affidavit is wholly inadequate for making out a case for setting aside the ex parte decree. 16. As we shall presently point out, the allegation made in defendant's affidavit is wholly inadequate for making out a case for setting aside the ex parte decree. 16. The affidavit filed by the Petitioner in support of the petition having not been controverted by the Respondent by filing a counter affidavit nor any materials has been furnished by the Respondent as to why not petition filed by the Petitioner is not to be relied upon, we have no option but to reply upon the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the averments made in the writ petition. 17. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that notice u/s 3 of the Act, for the purpose of requisition by the District Magistrate must he served upon the owner as well as occupier of the accommodation to show cause within 15 days from the date of service of the said notice on him as to why not the accommodation should be requisitioned. 18. Section 4 of the Act is supplementary to Section 3, it provides as to how notices have to be served on the owner as well as occupied. In case these two sections are read conjointly there is no escape that the owner and occupier both must be served. 19. The Maxims need not be referred mechanically, but Maxim ACTUS LEGITIMI NON RECIPIUNT MODUM, appears relevant. This connotes that when doing of a thing in a particular manner is sanctioned by law, then the thing cannot be done in a different way. 20. In Tylor v. Tylor (1876) I CH-D 426, (Ich.D. 426) Jessel MR. Observed at P. 431, as follows : When a statutory power is conferred for the first time upon a Court and the mode of exercising it is pointed, it means that no other mode is to be adopted. 21. In Nazir Ahmad v. The Kind Emperor (1936) 36 Ind. Appl.372, the Privy Council, per Lord Roche, held at p. 381-82 as follows : the rule which applies is a different and not less well recognised rule viz. that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. 22. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. 22. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh and Others, AIR 1964 SC 358 it was held by his Lordship A.K. Sankar, J. (as he then was) : the rule adopted in (1876) I ch. 426, is well recognised and is founded on sound principles its result is that if a statute has conferred a power a power to do one act and has laid down method, in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner: then that which has been prescribed The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted. 23. In our opinion the legislature intended the procedure under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act to be followed but it was not followed. 24. It has been stated in para 10 of the petition that no notice has been served on the Petitioner about the requisition proceeding to be initiated by the District Magistrate. The notice appears to have been served on Sri A.C. Nanda, who has already vacated the accommodation. 25. Under the circumstances of the case neither notice was served on the tenant who has no interest in the accommodation nor the notice was served on the owner of the accommodation. Consequently, we are of the opinion that provision of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act have not been complied with as the mandatory provisions have not been complied with. Consequently, requisition proceeding are manifestly erroneous and deserve to be quashed. 26. In view of the premises aforesaid, petition is succeed and is allowed. Notice dated 4th of September, 1980 (Annexure 6) to the petition is quashed. It is, however, made clear that if for the public purpose accommodation is required afresh proceeding may be initiated but that must be strictly in accordance with the provision of the Act. As Respondents have not contested the petition, we refrain from passing any order in respect of the payment of costs. 27. It is, however, made clear that if for the public purpose accommodation is required afresh proceeding may be initiated but that must be strictly in accordance with the provision of the Act. As Respondents have not contested the petition, we refrain from passing any order in respect of the payment of costs. 27. The office is directed to send one copy of this judgment to the Learned Advocate General, U.P., and one copy to the Judicial Secretary State of Uttar Pradesh and one copy to the Chief Secretary of U.P., for necessary action if they consider it appropriate and to ensure proper conduct of the cases on behalf of the State in the High Court by filing counter affidavit within time provided or under the direction of the Court.