ORDER

1 The petitioner, who appears in person, states that he is aggrieved by what he described as a ‘defective oath’ administered to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

2 The petitioner states that the Chief Justice did not use the expression “I” before his name while taking the oath, in contravention of the Third Schedule of the Constitution.

3 The second grievance which he has set forth before the Court is that the representatives/Administrator of the Government of the Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Dadar and Nagar Haveli were not invited to the oath ceremony.

Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2023.10.13 16:48:20 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified The petitioner does not, as he possible cannot, dispute that the oath of office was administered to the correct person. The oath having been administered by the Governor and having been subscribed to after the administration of the oath, such objections cannot be raised. This is only a frivolous attempt to use the PIL jurisdiction to propagate some publicity for the petitioner. We are clearly of the view that such frivolous PILs occupy the time and attention of the Co