R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) WHEN the matter came up for consideration on 14-2-1997 during arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent pointed out that while the petitioner is 'v. R. Kamath', the vakalath and the affidavit verifying the writ petition are signed 'kaviraja'. He pointed out that neither the petition, nor the affidavit or vakalath indicated that Petitioner was represented by any Attorney Holder. The Counsel for Petitioner admitted that the affidavit and vakalath were signed by a different person, due to oversight. In the circumstances, a notice was issued to the Oath Commissioner who had administered the oath, to produce the register maintained by her to show whether such an affidavit was sworn to before her and to offer her explanation. The Oath Commissioner has filed her explanation by way of an affidavit dated 17-2-1997. At the request of the Petitioner's counsel, this case which was directed to be listed on 28-2-1997, is taken up today.

( 2 ) THE Oath Commissioner has admitted that she had administered the oath regard to the affidavit verifying the petition on 30-1-1997; that due to oversight, the signature of some one other than the petitioner was obtained to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document