Disposed¶13

Hemshankar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2026WRIC/10174/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Character certificate; non-consideration of representations by respondent-authority; writ petition disposed without adjudicating merits; liberty to file fresh representation before Superintendent of Police, Bareilly (respondent no.3) within one month; direction to decide representation in accordance with law within one month of receipt; reliance on Anil Kumar v. State of U.P., Writ-C No.718 of 2025; Writ-C No. 10174 of 2026; Allahabad High Court; decision dated March 18, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation with certified copy of the order before respondent no.3-Superintendent of Police, Bareilly within one month; respondent no.3 to consider and decide it in accordance with law within one month of receipt, in light of Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. (Writ-C No.718 of 2025). ¶13

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-authority could withhold issuance of a character certificate to the petitioner despite his repeated representations, and what directions should issue.

¶11

Court's answer

Without adverting into the merits of the case, the Division Bench disposed of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation, alongwith a certified copy of the order, raising all his grievances before respondent no.3-Superintendent of Police, Bareilly within one month.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

If such a representation is filed, respondent no.3 shall consider and decide it in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt, in the light of this Court's judgment in Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. (Writ-C No.718 of 2025).

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Saral Srivastava and Sudhanshu Chauhan, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition in which the petitioner, Hemshankar, complained that the respondent-authority was not issuing him a character certificate despite several representations to which no action had been taken. Learned Standing Counsel stated that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending and that a direction to respondent no.3 to consider the grievance would suffice. Without adverting into the merits, the Court permitted the petitioner to file a fresh representation, with a certified copy of the order, raising all grievances before respondent no.3-Superintendent of Police, Bareilly within one month, and directed that if such representation is filed it shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within one month of receipt, in the light of the Court's earlier judgment in Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. (Writ-C No.718 of 2025).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10174 of 2026

Hemshankar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anil Kumar Tiwari, Mishra	Pushpendra Kumar
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 the State-respondents.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

March 18, 2026 Sattyarth

¶15

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

¶16

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

Hemshankar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemshankar 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

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