JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. 2. Personal affidavit dated 25.2.2022 of Sri Pradyumn Tripathi, Additional Director General, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, Meerut has been filed today, which contains 12 paragraphs and all the 12 paragraphs have been sworn as under: ''I, the deponent above named, do hereby swear that the contents of paragraphs Nos. 1-12 of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge and are based on perusal of records; which all I believe to be true that no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed in it.'' 3. Rule 12 of Chapter IV of the Allahabad High Court Rules provides that how an affidavit shall be sworn by the deponent. For ready reference Rule 12 of Chapter IV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, is reproduced below: ''12. Facts to be within the deponent's knowledge or source to be stated-Except on interlocutory applications, an affidavit shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove. On an interlocutory application when a particular fact is not within the deponent's own knowledge, but is based on his belief or information received from others which he believes to be true, the deponent shall use the expression'' I am informed and verily believe such information to be true'' or words to that effect and shall sufficiently describe for the purpose of identification, the person or persons from whom his information was received. When any fact is stated on the basis of information derived from a document, full particulars of the document shall be stated and the deponent shall verify that he believes such information to be true.'' 4. Order XIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Order XIX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as inserted by High Court amendment, are reproduced below: ''Order XIX Rule 3 Matters to which affidavits shall be confined: (1) Affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may be admitted, provided that the grounds thereof are stated. (2) The costs of every affidavit which shall unnecessarily set forth matters of hearsay or argumentative matter, or copies of or extracts from documents, shall (unless the Court otherwise directs) be paid by the party filing the same. Order XIX Rule 9 ''Except in interlocutory proceedings, affidavits shall strictly be confined to such facts as the declarant is able of his own knowledge to prove. In interlocutory proceedings, when the particular fact is not within the declarant's own knowledge, but is stated from information obtained from others, the declarant shall use the expression ''I am in formed'', and, if such be the case, ''and verily believe it to be true'', and shall state the name and address of, and sufficiently describe for the purposes of identification, the person or persons from whom he received such information. When the application or the opposition thereto rests on facts disclosed in documents or copies of documents produced from any Court of Justice or other source, the declarant shall state what is the source from which they were produced, and his information and belief as to the truth of the facts disclosed in such documents. (22-5-1915).'' 5. The aforesaid affidavit dated 25.2.2022 filed by Sri Pradyumn Tripathi, Additional Director General, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, Meerut, does not comply with the requirements of a valid affidavit as provided in Rule 12 of Chapter IV of the Allahabad High Court Rules/Order XIX Rule 9 C.P.C. 6. As noticed in paragraph 2 above, the deponent of the aforesaid personal affidavit dated 25.2.2022 has not verified/sworn paragraphs either on personal knowledge or on the basis of information received from others or on the basis of information derived from the documents. 7. Affidavit is a mode of placing evidence before the Court. Party may prove a fact or facts by means of affidavit before this Court but such affidavit should be in accordance Rules. The Rules enable the Court to find out as to whether it would be safe to act on such evidence and to enable the Court to know as to what facts are based in the affidavits on the basis of personal knowledge, information and belief as this is relevant for the purpose of appreciating the evidence placed before the Court, in the form of affidavit. 8. 8. It is only on the basis of verification, it is possible to decide the genuineness and authenticity of the allegations and the deponent can be held responsible for the allegations made in the affidavit. It is, therefore, necessary that the person making averments in the affidavit must disclose as to what facts are true to his personal knowledge, what facts are true on the basis of information received from others which he believed to be true and what facts are based on information derived from documents. Full particulars of the document needs to be stated and the deponent has to verify that the information is believed to be true. An affidavit which does not comply with the aforesaid provisions of the Allahabad High Court Rules/CPC, has no probative value and is liable to be rejected. 9. In the case of Bharat Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 , Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the law that how in Writ Petition or in Counter-affidavit the facts need to be pleaded and proved. The relevant portion of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Singh (supra) is reproduced below: ''In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter, affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.'' (Emphasis supplied by us) 10. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.'' (Emphasis supplied by us) 10. In the case of State of Bombay vs. Purushottam Jog Naik, AIR 1952 SC 317 , a Constitution Bench considering the importance of verification of an affidavit observed (at p.319 of AIR): ''We wish, however, to observe that the verification of the affidavits produced here is defective. The body of the affidavit discloses that certain matters were known to the Secretary who made the affidavit personally. The verification however states that everything was true to the best of his information and belief. We point this out as slipshod verification of this type might well in a given case lead to a rejection of the affidavit. Verification should invariably be modelled on the lines of Order XIX, Rule 3, of the Civil Procedure Code, whether the Code applies in terms or not. And when the matter deposed to is not based on personal knowledge the sources of information should be clearly disclosed.'' 11. In the case of Smt. Savithramma vs. Cicil Naronha and Another, AIR 1988 SC 1987 (Para 2) Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the importance of verification of affidavit and rejection of affidavit in the absence of proper verification and held as under: ''......Affidavit is a mode of placing evidence before the Court. A party may prove a fact or facts by means of affidavit before this Court but such affidavit should be in accordance with Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules. The purpose underlying Rules 5 and 13 of Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules is to enable the Court to find out as to whether it would be safe to act on such evidence and to enable the Court to know as to what facts are based in the affidavit on the basis of personal knowledge, information and belief as this is relevant for the purpose of appreciating the evidence placed before the Court, in the form of affidavit. The importance of verification has to be judged by the purpose for which it is required. The importance of verification has to be judged by the purpose for which it is required. It is only on the basis or verification, it is possible to decide the genuineness and authenticity of the allegations and the deponent can be held responsible for the allegations made in the affidavit. In this Court evidence in support of the statements contained in writ petition, special leave petitions, applications and other miscellaneous matters, is accepted in the form of affidavit filed by the parties concerned. It is therefore necessary that the party stating facts must disclose as to what facts are true to his personal knowledge, information or belief. If the statement of fact is based on information the source of information must be disclosed in the affidavit. An affidavit which does not comply with the provisions of Order XT of the Supreme Court Rules, has no probative value and it is liable to be rejected. In a matter where allegations of mala-fides or disobedience of the Court's order are made against a person or party it is all the more necessary that the person filing affidavit in this regard must take care to verify the facts stated in the affidavit strictly in accordance with the Rules 5 and 13 of Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules.'' 12. Since the aforesaid personal affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 by Sri Pradyumn Tripathi, Additional Director General, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, Meerut, does not apply with the provisions of Rule 12 of Chapter IV of the Allahabad High Court Rules/Order XIX Rule 9 C.P.C. therefore, it is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. However, we grant one more opportunity to the respondent No. 2 to file a proper affidavit within three days stating true and correct facts. 13. Put up as a fresh case on 30.5.2022 at 10 a.m.