Allahabad High Court
RAJESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The order rejecting the petitioner’s application for a character certificate is set aside as non‑speaking and non‑compliant with the Court’s guidelines.
Summary
Petitioner Rajesh Kumar applied online for a character certificate, which was rejected by the competent authority. He challenged the rejection through a writ petition, alleging that the order was non‑speaking and failed to apply the guidelines laid down by the High Court in Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. (Writ‑C No.718 of 2025). The respondents contended that the rejection was based on cogent reasons and was therefore lawful. The Court held that the order was indeed non‑speaking and did not consider the required guidelines, rendering it illegal. Consequently, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, to reconsider the application in accordance with the guidelines within one month. The petition was allowed without any order as to costs, with a proviso that the respondents could seek recall if any concealment by the petitioner is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the petitioner’s application for a character certificate is non‑speaking and therefore violative of principles of natural justice.
- Whether the rejecting authority complied with the procedural guidelines prescribed by the High Court in Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.
Subjects
- character certificate
- writ petition
- non‑speaking order
- procedural guidelines
- administrative law
- natural justice
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10112 of 2026
Rajesh Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, Vinod
Kumar Maurya
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 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 said order is non-speaking and 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 is non-speaking and 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. 10112 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,
Bareilly 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…