Allahabad High Court
KRISHNA RAWATversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The order rejecting the petitioner’s application for a character certificate is ultra vires because the authority failed to apply the guidelines laid down in Anil Kumar’s case, and therefore must be set aside.
Summary
The petitioner Krishna Rawat filed a writ petition challenging the authority’s order rejecting his online application for a character certificate. He argued that the order was passed without applying mind and ignored the guidelines laid down by this Court in Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. (Writ‑C No. 718 of 2025). The respondents contended that a cogent reason was recorded and the order was lawful. The Court held that the rejecting order indeed failed to consider the established guidelines and was therefore unsustainable. Consequently, the order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Superintendent of Police, Ballia, to reconsider the application in accordance with the guidelines within one month. No costs were awarded, and a proviso was added regarding possible recall if the petitioner concealed facts.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the petitioner’s application for a character certificate was passed without applying mind and in violation of the guidelines laid down by this Court in Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.
- Whether such an order can be set aside and the application reconsidered by the competent authority.
Subjects
- character certificate
- writ petition
- application of mind
- administrative guidelines
- Uttar Pradesh
- police authority
- judicial review
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10087 of 2026
Krishna Rawat
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Singh, Surya Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Pal,
learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. The petitioner being aggrieved by order rejecting the online application of
the petitioner for issuance of the character certificate by the respondents-
authority has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.
3. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that impugned order has been passed without application of mind
inasmuch as it has failed to consider the guidelines laid down by this Court
in bunch of writ petitions leading of which is Writ-C No.718 of 2025 (Anil
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. &
Others). Accordingly, it is submitted that the order rejecting the character
certificate of the petitioner cannot be sustained in law.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel would contend that while rejecting
the character certificate, cogent reason has been recorded by the competent
authority, and therefore, there is no illegality in the order rejecting the
character certificate of the petitioner.
5. Be that as it may, it is evident that the order rejecting the character
certificate of the petitioner has been passed without application of mind.
This Court in the case of Anil Kumar (supra) has laid down the guidelines
which has to be adhered to by the competent authority before considering the
application of character certificate whereas in the instant case, the
respondent-authority has not considered the guidelines laid down by this
Court in the case of Anil Kumar (supra) while rejecting the character
certificate of the petitioner.
WRIC No. 10087 of 2026
2
6. In such view of the fact, the order rejecting the online application of the
petitioner for issuance of character certificate cannot be sustained in law and
is, accordingly, set aside.
7. The matter is remitted to the respondent No.3-Superintendent of Police,
District Ballia to consider the claim of petitioner for issuance of the
character certificate in the light of the guidelines laid down by this Court in
the case of Anil Kumar (supra) within a period of one month from the date
of production of certified copy of this order.
8. Thus, for the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed with no
order as to costs.
9. It is made clear that if there is any concealment of fact by the petitioner in
obtaining the present order, the respondents shall have the liberty to file
recall application to recall the said order.
March 18, 2026
Sattyarth
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SATTYARTH ANAND
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…