ORDER

1. In response to the show cause notice dated 19.03.2024 issued to the Commissioner of Oaths namely Shri Ashok Mantri, he has filed his reply in which it has been stated as under :-

“(1) It is submitted that this Hon'ble High Court on 19/03/24 has been pleased to issue notice to the undersigned, to explain the fact that the petition and the affidavit of the petitioner in support thereof was notarized on 19/02/2024 but the same was prepared/ filed before this Hon'ble High Court on 11/03/2024. Further the petition has been drafted in Hindi language and the affidavit in support has been drafted in English which do not mention that the petition has been read over to the petitioner in Hindi language.

(2) It is submitted that, the petitioner and his counsel alongwith the printout of the petition memo came to sign and swear the affidavit in support on 19/02/2024 but the affidavit in support of the petition as well as the required declaration under Rule 25 of Chapter X of The High Court Rules, 2008 was missing, thus the counsel for the petitioner got it prepared with the aid of the available typist in the campus and was typed in English. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was duly present and has also signed register of business transacted maintained by the Oath Commissioner. A copy of the relevant extract of the register is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A. A bare perusal of the same shows that on 19/02/2024 at serial No.7806 the petitioner has duly signed the register.

(3) It is further submitted that, the entire petition was notarized and sealed by the Oath Commissioner on 19/02/2024 itself which is further verifiable from the seal imposed on the index of the petition. A copy of the relevant entry in the register dated 19/02/2024 in this behalf is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-1. It is submitted that the.

(4) It is submitted that the petition seems to have been presented before the registry on 11/03/2024 for the reasons best known to the petitioner or his counsel as after verification of the petition the same was handed over to the counsel for the petitioner on 12/02/2024 itself.

The filing of the petition is the choice of the petitioner or his counsel after the same was verified. Further, the content of the petition been explained to the petitioner in Hindi do not find mention in the affidavit as the same seems to have been prepared in High Court Campus after the same was drafted by the petitioners' counsel.

(5) The notice/ undersigned tenders an unconditional apology for any act of ignorance or mistake caused due to which an occasion has arose for issuance of notice to the noticee. Further, the undersigned assure that no mistake of any nature will be deliberately caused in future.”

2. Considering the reasons as furnished by the Commissioner of Oath, for the present I do not propose to initiate any proceedings against him. Consequently the show cause notice issued to him on 19.03.2024 is hereby dropped with a warning to him to be careful in the future.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission.

4. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the proposed recovery sought to be made from him. It is seen that the said notice is dated 23.12.2023 and therein the petitioner was directed to submit his consent for the proposed recovery within a period of three days. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recovery sought to be made from the petitioner is wholly illegal and contrary to law.

5. However it is observed that in response to the notice dated 23.12.2023 (Annexure P/9) the petitioner has neither furnished his consent for the recovery nor has raised any objection thereto and has directly rushed to this Court. In fact no order of recovery has yet been passed against the pet