Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh Tiwari vs State Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy. ... on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary, Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34442-DB
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6403 of 2020
Petitioner :- Akhilesh Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy. Revenue Lucknow And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- D.S. Pandey,Ashok Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar whereby the petitioner has been denied the character certificate on the ground that there are two cases registered against his father as Case Crime No. 54 of 2000 under Sections 325, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Case Crime No.306 of 2021, under Sections 506, 427, 504 I.P.C.
The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that a character certificate cannot be denied to an individual on the ground that a person in close relation is having a criminal history. He further argues that a character certificate is issued always to a person going to the history of that person concerned as it relates to the character of a person individual. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manyata Devi vs. State of U.P. & others reported in (2015) 10 SCC 198 whereunder vide para-6 the Court has observed as follows:-
" ... So also there is no dispute that the appellant is not involved in any criminal case or activity of any objectionable kind. That being the position, the District Magistrate should have simply certified her character because that was the only question which the former was called upon to examine while dealing with the request made by the appellant. The District Magistrate, however, appears to have been swayed by considerations wholly extraneous to the question whether the appellant had a good moral character. In the first order of refusal passed by him, he opined that since the appellant?s husband had criminal cases registered against him, she was disentitled from claiming a certificate of good moral character. Apart from the fact that the cases against the appellant?s husband to which the District Magistrate appears to be referring had ended in his acquittal, it is difficult to appreciate how criminal cases registered against the husband of the appellant could possibly deny her a certificate of good moral character. ..."
To the above legal preposition as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel has not disputed.
In such view of the matter, the order dated 22.01.2020 is held to be per se illegal being passed on an absolutely extraneous consideration and, so deserves to be quashed and the matter is required to be revisited by the concerned District Magistrate.
Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and allowed.
The order dated 22.01.2020 is hereby quashed.
The matter is directed to be revisited by the District Magistrate.
However, the decision shall now be taken by the District Magistrate in the light of the observations in the judgement made hereinabove, within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 17.5.2023
Arti/-
[Manish Kumar,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
