1. THE petitioner is a private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act. The company has moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to cancel or withdraw a notice or order under section 10 (2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and for a Writ of Certiorari for the quashing thereof and has obtained this Rule. When the Rule came up for hearing, it was detected that there was no affidavit of competency appended to the petition, as required under Rule 15 of the Rules of this Court relating to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution (hereinafter referred to as the Writ Rules ). I was prepared to adjourn the hearing of this Rule so as to enable the petitioner to cure the defect, but Mr. Priti Bhusan Burman, learned Advocate for the petitioner company, refused to take advantage of that opportunity and contended that the affidavit verifying the petition was sufficient also for the purposes of affidavit of competency under Rule 15. I, therefore, called upon Mr. Burman to substantiate his point. Elaborating his contention, Mr. Burman argued that Rule 15 of the Writ Rules attracted the provisions of Order 29, of the Code of Civil Procedure by its own force and if an affidavit fulfilled the requirements of Order 29 of the Code nothing further need be done. In order to appreciate this argument it is necessary for me to examine, in the first place, the language of Rules 14 and 15 of the Writ Rules and also the relevant provisions of Order 29, rule 1 of the Code. Rules 14 and 15 of the Writ Rules read as follows: -

"14. Every petition shall be verified by the solemn affirmation made by the petitioner or a person or persons having cognizance of the facts stated and shall state clearly by reference to the paragraphs of the petition whether the statements are based on knowledge, information and belief, or on records. Where a statement is based on information, the source of information should, be disclosed and where the statements are based on records, sufficient particulars should be given to identify the records. 15. Where the petitioner is a company or a corporation, there should be appended an affidavit of competency ; where the petitioner or a respondent is a corporation, the provisions of Order XXIX of the C. P. Code in so far as they are applicable, shall apply"

Rule 1 of Order 29 of the Code is couched in the following language: -

"In suits by or against a Corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the Corporation by the Secretary or by any Director or other principal officer of the Corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case."

2. MR. Burman contended that the affidavit in support of the petition was affirmed by one of the Directors of the petitioner company, who stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the affidavit as follows:-

Para. 1.

"That I am one of the Directors of the petitioner company and as such I am competent and authorised to make this application before this Hon'ble Court, to verify and sign this application and to sign Vokalatnamas and do all other things in connection therewith that may be necessary on behalf of the petitioner company and I am acting under the said authority.

Para. 2. That I am acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. "

According to Mr. Burman, the aforesaid paragraphs in the affidavit by a Director of the petitioner company served the requirements of Order 29, rule 1 of the Code and as such fulfilled the provisions of Rule 15 of the Writ Rules. In my opinion, Mr. Burman is not right in his contention. The Secretary, director or any other principal officer of a Corporation is not the party pleading in a suit instituted or an application moved by a Corporation. The party pleading is the Corporation itself. But because a juristic body like a corporation cannot sign or verify, under its own hands, the persons mentioned in Rule 1 of Order 29 of the Code of Civ