Allahabad High Court
HEMSHANKARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is disposed with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation and to the respondent to decide it within one month, without adjudicating the merits.
Summary
Hemshankar filed a writ petition seeking a character certificate from the Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, alleging that his multiple representations had been ignored. The State of U.P. and other respondents opposed the petition. The Court, without examining the merits, directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with a certified copy of the order within one month. It further ordered the Superintendent to consider and decide the representation within one month of receipt, in line with the precedent set in Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. (Writ‑C No.718 of 2025). The petition was therefore disposed, allowing the administrative process to proceed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should direct the issuance of a character certificate without examining the merits.
- Whether the petitioner must be directed to file a fresh representation before the Superintendent of Police.
- Whether the respondent authority should be bound to decide the fresh representation within a stipulated time.
Subjects
- character certificate
- writ petition
- administrative law
- representation
- High Court of Allahabad
- direction
- petition disposed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10174 of 2026
Hemshankar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Tiwari, Pushpendra Kumar
Mishra
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
the State-respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent-authority is not issuing
character certificate to the petitioner despite the fact that petitioner has
submitted several representations to the respondent-authority for issuance of
the same, but till date, no action has been taken on the same.
3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that no useful purpose would be served
in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may be issued
to the respondent no.3 to consider the grievance of the petitioner.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without adverting
into the merits of the case, we dispose off the writ petition permitting the
petitioner to file a fresh representation alongwith certified copy of this order
raising all his grievances before the respondent no.3-Superintendent of
Police, Bareilly within a period of one month from today. In case, any such
representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.3 shall consider
and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of one month
from the date he receives the representation of the petitioner in the light of
judgement of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Thru.
Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. & Others passed in Writ-C No.718
of 2025.
March 18, 2026
Sattyarth
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SATTYARTH ANAND
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…