JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Ms.Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1. Mr.Hriday Buch, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.2 and 3. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, with the following prayers: “(A) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the instruction containing that single deserted woman should swear affidavit before Judicial Magistrate as per proforma Annexure A to the Passport Application Form. In alternative: B) Your Lordships would be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order Annexure B2 to this petition and further directing the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate to affirm the Affidavit His Honour. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate directions to the respondent No.2 to produce any material justifying the direction containing in Annexure A to the Passport Application. (D) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief and/or order in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioners.” 3. At the outset, Mr.Suresh Bhatt, learned advocate for HL Patel Advocates for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing the prayer made at paragraph 15(A) of the petition. 4. The brief facts of the case, relevant for the decision of the petition, are that the marriage of the petitioner with Vishal Pankajbhai Rabdu, took place on 15-12-2005 as per Hindu rites and rituals. A male child named Moksh, was born out of the said wedlock, on 5-1-2010. It is the case of the petitioner that she has been deserted by her husband and is staying with her parents. The petitioner applied for a Passport for her son Moksh, to respondent No.3, on 23-8-2011. A male child named Moksh, was born out of the said wedlock, on 5-1-2010. It is the case of the petitioner that she has been deserted by her husband and is staying with her parents. The petitioner applied for a Passport for her son Moksh, to respondent No.3, on 23-8-2011. Respondent No.3 called upon the petitioner to swear an affidavit declaring that she is a deserted lady and that her son is in her custody ever since delivery and during her separation, before a Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner approached the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur for affirmation of the affidavit, as per Annexure “G”, as required under Rule 5, of the Passport Rules,1980. However, the request of the petitioner for affirmation of the affidavit has been turned down by the learned Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 12-9-2011, on the ground that there is no provision of law empowering him to affirm such an affidavit. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present petition. 5. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondent No.3, wherein a stand has been taken that as per Section 3 of the Oaths Act, 1969, the learned Judicial Magistrate has the power to affirm an affidavit, as stated in Annexure “G” of the Passport Rules, 1980. 6. Heard Mr.Suresh Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Hriday Buch, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3. No stand has been taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, as the State of Gujarat is not a contesting party. 7. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner, that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not mentioned the provision of law under which the application has been filed and that under the Criminal Manual, the Courts have no power to administer Oath, except with respect to Court proceedings, is not in accordance with law. It is submitted that under Section 3 of the Oaths Act, 1969, all Courts would have the power to administer oaths and affirm affidavits, therefore, it was not necessary for the petitioner to mention any provision of law. It is submitted that under Section 3 of the Oaths Act, 1969, all Courts would have the power to administer oaths and affirm affidavits, therefore, it was not necessary for the petitioner to mention any provision of law. It is further submitted that as per Annexure “G” which is prescribed under Rule 5 of the Passport Rules, 1980, an affidavit is to be affirmed before a Judicial Magistrate on non-judicial stamp paper, and as this is a requirement of law, the learned Magistrate, ought not to have rejected the application of the petitioner. 8. Mr.Hriday Buch, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3, is in agreement with the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, insofar as the powers of affirmation of an affidavit under Section 3 of the Oaths Act, 1969, by the learned Judicial Magistrates, are concerned. 9. In this background, it would be pertinent to advert to the relevant provisions of law. Section 3 of the Oaths Act, 1969 reads as below: “3. Power to administer oaths.-(1) The following courts and persons shall have power to administer, by themselves, or subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of section 6, by an officer empowered by them in this behalf, oaths and affirmations in discharge of the duties imposed or in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by law, namely:- (a) all courts and persons having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence; (b) the commanding officer of any military, naval, or air force station or ship occupied by the Armed Forces of the Union, provided that the oath or affirmation is administered within the limits of the station. (2) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by sub-section (1) or by or under any other law for the time being in force, any court, Judge, Magistrate or person may administer oaths and affirmations for the purpose of affidavits, if empowered in this behalf- (a) by the High Court, in respect of affidavits for the purpose of judicial proceedings, or (b) by the State Government, in respect of other affidavits.” 10. It is evident from a perusal of the above provision of law that all Courts, including those of learned Judicial Magistrates, are vested with power to administer oaths and affirm affidavits in discharge of duties imposed, or in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by law. It is evident from a perusal of the above provision of law that all Courts, including those of learned Judicial Magistrates, are vested with power to administer oaths and affirm affidavits in discharge of duties imposed, or in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by law. In the present case, Annexure “G” is the Declaration of the applicant parent or guardian, if the passport is for a minor (one parent not given consent) and is to be sworn in the form of an affidavit before a Judicial Magistrate on non-judicial stamp paper. The form at Annexure “G” has been prescribed under Rule 5 of the Passport Rules, 1980. Section 24(2)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967, empowers the framing of Rules and it is under this provision of law that the Rules have been framed. Rule 5, in turn, prescribes the Form containing Annexure “G”. It, therefore, emerges that the form containing Annexure “G', as per which the petitioner has to swear the affidavit before the learned Judicial Magistrate, is prescribed by law, therefore, the grounds of rejection of the application made by the petitioner, by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, namely, that the petitioner has not mentioned under which provision of law the application is filed, and that under the Criminal Manual the Courts have no power to administer oaths, except with respect to Court proceedings, are not in consonance with law. The contents of the Criminal Manual would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the prescribed form containing Annexure “G” is a requirement under Rule 5 of the Passport Rules, 1980. 11. For the aforestated reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12-9-2011, passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) is quashed and set aside. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) is directed to re-consider the application made by the petitioner in proper perspective, and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without avoidable delay. 12. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no orders as to costs.