Allowed¶19

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2026WRIC/10112/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Character certificate rejection quashed; non-speaking order; no application of mind; guidelines in Anil Kumar (Writ-C No.718 of 2025) not followed; writ allowed; matter remanded to SP Bareilly for fresh decision within one month; recall liberty on concealment; Allahabad High Court, March 18, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed with no order as to costs; impugned order rejecting the character certificate application set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.3-Superintendent of Police, Bareilly for fresh consideration in light of the Anil Kumar (supra) guidelines within one month; liberty to respondents to seek recall in case of concealment by the petitioner. ¶19

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's online application for issuance of a character certificate is sustainable in law when it is alleged to be non-speaking, passed without application of mind, and without adherence to the guidelines laid down by this Court in Anil Kumar (Writ-C No.718 of 2025).

¶12

Court's answer

The order rejecting the petitioner's character certificate is non-speaking and has been passed without application of mind; the respondent-authority did not consider the guidelines laid down by this Court in Anil Kumar (supra), and therefore the order cannot be sustained in law and is set aside.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The matter is remitted to respondent No.3-Superintendent of Police, Bareilly to consider the petitioner's claim for issuance of the character certificate in the light of the guidelines laid down in Anil Kumar (supra), within one month from production of a certified copy of the order.

¶18

Key takeaways

If there is any concealment of fact by the petitioner in obtaining the present order, the respondents shall have liberty to file a recall application to recall the order.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saral Srivastava and Sudhanshu Chauhan, JJ.) allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's online application for issuance of a character certificate. The Court found the rejection order non-speaking and passed without application of mind, and observed that the competent authority had failed to adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Court in Anil Kumar (Writ-C No.718 of 2025). The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to respondent No.3-Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, to reconsider the petitioner's claim in light of those guidelines within one month of production of a certified copy of the order. No costs were imposed. Liberty was reserved to the respondents to file a recall application if the order was obtained by concealment of facts.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10112 of 2026

¶3

Rajesh Kumar

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶6

.....Respondent(s)

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ganesh	Shanker	Srivastava,	Vinod
	Kumar M	aurya
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 40

¶9

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

¶11

The petitioner being aggrieved by order rejecting the online application of the petitioner for issuance of the character certificate by the respondentsauthority has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

WRIC No. 10112 of 2026

¶16

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Thus, for the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

¶20

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.

¶21

March 18, 2026 Sattyarth

¶22

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Ramkrishna Garg and Suppliers vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Ramkrishna Garg and Suppliers vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahafooj Ali vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kuldeep Narayan Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 13 Others

Smt Prema Devi Vs Regional Transport Authority Kanpur and Others

Chandra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another