Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel. Perused the record of the case. 2. We are sad to note that present case is an example of casual approach of the learned Counsel for the petitioner while discharging professional duties. Annexure-3 to the petition shows that some order was passed on 25th August, 2003, by the Commissioner for removed of the shops/in question. 3. Neither copy of the said order has been filed nor relief to quash the said order has been sought. 4. Moreover objection of the petitioner against alleged orders of the authorities dated 12-9-2003, 18-9- 2003, 20-9-2003 (endorsed on the extreme left side of the objection filed by Sanjai Yadav, (Respondent No. 6) Annexure-3 to the writ petition are still pending. 5. Petitioner has not filed relevant documents referred to in the said objection of Sanjai Yadav dated 18- 9-2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) wherein he has stated that petitioner had obtained extension of time for one month from September 1st, 2003. 6. It is apparent that relevant and material facts, as well as order and other documents, have not been brought on record of the petition. 7. Urgency for rushing to this Court said to have been mentioned in para 14 of the petition, wherein it is alleged that Tehsildar and other subordinate officers of the Tehsil in question are bent upon to remove the shops in question, and in garb of direction of the Commissioner as per above orders-Annexure-3 to the writ petition, poor petitioners are compelled not to open the shops on account of which they are suffering approximately a loss of Rs. 200 per day. Curiously said paragraph 14 of the writ petition is sworn on the basis of legal advise. 8. We are at a loss how the contents of paragraph 14 could be sworn on the basis of legal advise and hence liable to be ignored. 9. We bring on record that the affidavit filed in support of the said writ petition is no affidavit in the eye of law. Initials by the Oath Commissioner leaving blank spaces in swearing clause of the said affidavit apparently shows that it is not executed in accordance with law and it is signed by oath Commissioner while there were blanks (some of which are filed in later) fabricated subsequently. Initials by the Oath Commissioner leaving blank spaces in swearing clause of the said affidavit apparently shows that it is not executed in accordance with law and it is signed by oath Commissioner while there were blanks (some of which are filed in later) fabricated subsequently. This fact is evident from Oath Commissioners initials on two columns leaving blank spaces in the swearing para referring to believe to be true. The said blank space has been underlined by red ink by us. 10. Unless such affidavits are checked and action against oath Commissioner taken the entire edifice of judicial system is bound to crumble. It is our boundened duty, though unpleasant one, to check the same. 11. We restrain ourselves in imposing penal costs on the petitioners hoping that all concerned shall exercise due diligence, discretion and be dutiful to discharge their duties with caution and care in future. 12. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed. .