# Jugal Kishore Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 389
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-04
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3175 of 2020
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jugal-kishore-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45902
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Law-The
Uttar
Oradesh
excise
Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale of
Foreign
Liquor
(Excluding
Beer)
(Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, 2019-Rule
8 (d) (iii) -Pendency of a Criminal Casesufficient to deny issue of a character
certificate.

Held, a person against whom a criminal case is
pending, cannot be said to be a person having
no criminal background. If the character
certificate is issued despite pendency of a
criminal
case,
because
there
is
yet
no
conviction, and on the basis thereof the
petitioner applies for the grant of license of
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
foreign liquor shop, the same would not be in
consonance with the eligibility conditions as
prescribed under Rule 8 (d)(iii) of the Rules,

## Text

7 All. Jugal Kishore Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
389
the instant case, the Court found that on
3.4.2019, the issue with regard to the fact
as to whether the respondent no.3 was a
workman was framed and parties were
required to make their submissions with
regard to it alone. Thereafter various dates
were fixed and it was expected that the
parties would make submissions on the
issue framed on 3.4.2019 first. Still further,
the Court finds that nowhere in the ordersheet the issues as had been enumerated in
the award were framed and, therefore, it
cannot be concluded that the parties had
sufficient notice as to in what regard they
had to address the Labour Court.

9. A perusal of the award of the Labour
Court definitely shows that after hearing was
concluded on 17.9.2019, the Labour Court had
answered the Reference on merits and in the
award itself, issues were also framed. The
proper course for the Labour Court ought to
have been that it should have earlier framed
issues and thereafter it should have directed the
parties to make their submissions.

10. So far as the question with regard to
mentioning about an opportunity in the Written
Statement is concerned, suffice it to say that no
adjudication in that regard was essential at this
point of time. Before finding that the domestic
enquiry was erroneous the Court ought to have
heard the parties on that issue and, thereafter, if
the enquiry was found defective the question of
leading evidence on the charges would have
arisen.

11. Under such circumstances, the award
dated 4.10.2019, so far as it decides the
Reference, cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law and it is, accordingly, set aside. The finding
with regard to the fact that the respondent no.3
was a workman, however, as was arrived at
after a full-fledged argument and has not also
been assailed by the petitioner, would remain.

12. The Labour Court would now hear
the petitioner and the respondent no.3 on merits
viz-a-viz. issue nos.2 and 3 as can be found in
the award. The Labour Court shall permit the
parties to lead evidence, documentary as also
oral and thereafter answer the Reference. This
exercise shall be concluded within two months
from the date of presentation of a certified copy
of this order.

13. The writ petition is, accordingly,
partly allowed.
----------
(2020)07ILR A389
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Writ C No. 3175 of 2020

Jugal Kishore Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rohan Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil
Law-The
Uttar
Oradesh
excise
Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale of
Foreign
Liquor
(Excluding
Beer)
(Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, 2019-Rule
8 (d) (iii) -Pendency of a Criminal Casesufficient to deny issue of a character
certificate.

Held, a person against whom a criminal case is
pending, cannot be said to be a person having
no criminal background. If the character
certificate is issued despite pendency of a
criminal
case,
because
there
is
yet
no
conviction, and on the basis thereof the
petitioner applies for the grant of license of
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
foreign liquor shop, the same would not be in
consonance with the eligibility conditions as
prescribed under Rule 8 (d)(iii) of the Rules,
2019. (Para 29)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Vijay Prakash Pandey Vs District Magistrate
and others [Writ Petition No.328/2009(M/s)
decided on 8.7.2009]

2.Krishna Pal Singh Chauhan Vs D.M., Haridwar
. & ors. [Writ Petition No.1176 of 2014 (M/s)
decided on 27.5.2014]

3.Dharam Pal Singh Vs St. of Raj. [Civil Special
Appeal (Writ) Nos. 893, 948, 956, 895 and 1025
of 1998 decided on 10.3.2000]

4. Rajnath Singh Vs State of U.P. . &2 ors.
[Writ - C No.34480 of 2014 (D.B.)

5. Nilgiris Bar Association Vs T.K. Mahalingam
(1998) 1 SCC 550

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. We have heard Sri Rohan Gupta,
learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2
and have perused the material brought on
record.

2. The petitioner has filed the present
petition for the following reliefs :-

"a. Issue an appropriate writ, order
or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned order dated 22.1.2020 passed by
the District Magistrate Rampur,

b. Issue an appropriate writ, order
or direction in the nature of mandamus,
directing the Respondents to permit the
petitioner to participate in the tender (lottery)
process for the renewal of his license,
scheduled to be held from 28.1.2020 to
3.2.2020, for the allotment of liquor shop for the
year 2020-21, in accordance with law,

c. Issue any other suitable writ, order
or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem
fit
and
proper
under
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case.

d. Award costs of the writ petition to
the petitioner throughout."

3. The facts of the case as disclosed in the
writ petition are that the First Information
Report in Case Crime No.223 of 2017 under
Sections 147/149/353/332/504/506 and 323 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered at
Police Station Shahabad, District Rampur,
against the petitioner on 15.4.2017 in which a
charge sheet dated 30.5.2017 was filed against
the petitioner but after further investigation
under the orders of the Superintendent of
Police, Rampur, a final report dated 10.1.2018
was submitted. However, at the instance of
informant/respondent no.3, further investigation
was directed and thereafter, a charge sheet dated
8.1.2019 was filed against the petitioner. The
petitioner challenged the said charge sheet by
way of filing Criminal Misc. Application
No.10944 of 2019 (Smt. Akhtari and 5 others v.
State of U.P. And Another) under Section 482
Cr.P.C., in which this Court by interim order
dated 8.8.2019, provided inter alia, that no
coercive measures shall be taken against the
petitioner. It is stated that in pursuance of the
interim order dated 8.8.2019, the process issued
against the petitioner in Case No.18 of 2019
(State v. Rafeeq and others) arising out of Case
Crime No.223/2017, were recalled by the
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate-II,
Rampur by order dated 19.8.2019.

4. The petitioner was issued a
character
certificate
by
the
District
Magistrate/Collector, Rampur on 19.4.2018
despite the F.I.R. dated 15.4.2017. The said
7 All. Jugal Kishore Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
391
certificate was cancelled by order dated
22.6.2019
without
affording
any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Consequently, the petitioner filed Writ - C
No.21242 of 2019 (Jugal Kishore v. State
of U.P. And 2 others) which was disposed
of by this Court by order dated 4.7.2019
with
the
direction
to
the
District
Magistrate/Collector, Rampur, to pass a
fresh order in accordance with law, after
giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
The
petitioner
filed
an
application
to
restore
his
character
certificate but the same was rejected by
order dated 22.1.2020 passed by the
District Magistrate, Rampur.

5. The petitioner has also stated that
he continued to run his allotted liquor shop
for the year 2019-20, but in view of the
cancellation of the petitioner's character
certificate by order dated 22.1.2020, the
petitioner
would
be
deprived
of
participating in the tender proceedings
(lottery) for the renewal/allotment of liquor
shop for the year 2020-21 scheduled to be
held from 28.1.2020 to 3.2.2020 inasmuch
as one of the tender conditions is that the
applicant for the liquor shop must have a
valid character certificate issued by the
District Magistrate of the concerned
district.

6. It is in the background of the
aforesaid facts that the petitioner has
prayed
for
the
reliefs
mentioned
hereinabove for quashing of the order dated
22.1.2020
and
for
direction
to
the
respondents to permit the petitioner to
participate in the process for allotment
/renewal of liquor shop.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that on the ground of
pendency of the criminal
case, the
petitioner's character certificate could not
be cancelled. He has further submitted that
the character certificate was granted on
19.4.2018 when the F.I.R. dated 15.4.2017
had already been lodged. He has next
submitted that a reasonable opportunity of
hearing was not afforded to the petitioner
before
cancellation
of
the
character
certificate inasmuch as a copy of the
complaint, upon which the proceedings
were initiated, was not provided to him. His
further submission is that the order of
cancellation of the character certificate is
also contrary to the provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh Excise Settlement of Licenses for
Retail Sale of Foreign Liquor (Excluding
Beer) (Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, 2019,
which according to him, under Rule
8(d)(iii), requires the applicant to furnish a
notarized affidavit of being of good moral
character and not having been convicted.
His submission is that the criteria for
cancellation of character certificate which
decides the eligibility for participating in
the tender/e-lottery proceedings should be
in terms of the conditions of the eligibility
and cannot be based on the guidelines in
deviation therefrom.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgements of the
High Court of Uttarakhand in the cases of
Vijay Prakash Pandey v. District
Magistrate and others [Writ Petition
No.328/2009(M/s) decided on 8.7.2009];
Krishna Pal Singh Chauhan v. District
Magistrate, Haridwar & others [Writ
Petition No.1176 of 2014 (M/s) decided
on 27.5.2014] and the Full Bench
Judgement
of
the
High
Court
of
Rajasthan in the case of Dharam Pal
Singh v. State of Rajasthan [Civil
Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 893, 948,
956, 895 and 1025 of 1998 decided on
10.3.2000] paragraphs 145-149.
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Learned Standing Counsel has
supported the order dated 22.1.2020 as
having
been
passed
after
affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He
has
submitted
that
the
order
dated
22.1.2020 does not suffer from any
illegality inasmuch as the same has been
passed after it was found that the criminal
case was pending against the petitioner at
the time of grant of character certificate but
this fact was suppressed. He has next
submitted that the petitioner's character
certificate having been cancelled, he is not
eligible to participate in the proceedings for
renewal/allotment of the liquor shop.

10. We have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

11. It is not in dispute that the F.I.R. in
Case Crime No.223/2017 under Sections
147/149/353/332/504/506 and 323 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) dated 15.4.2017 was
lodged in which the petitioner is one of the
accused. The character certificate was issued
by the District Magistrate, Rampur on
19.4.2018.

12. A perusal of the character certificate
shows that in Clause (7), relating to the
particulars of the criminal cases, it is written
"none". Clause (7) is being reproduced as
under :-

7- vijkf/kd eqdneksa dk fooj.k&dksbZ
ugha"

13. It is also relevant to
reproduce Clause (8) of the character
certificate which is as under :-

"8- lkekU; [;kfr %& iqfyl v/kh{kd]
jkeiqj ds ih0oh0vkj0 la0 73@2018 fnukad
07&03&2018 ds vuqlkj LFkkuh; Fkkuk o
,y0vkbZ0;w0 ds vfHkys[kksa esa buds fo:) dksbZ
izfrdwy izfof"V ugha ikbZ xbZA"

14. Further, note nos.1 to 3 in the
character certificate itself provided as under :-

"uksV%& ;g izek.k i= iqfyl v/kh{kd
jkeiqj }kjk fuxZr pfj= izek.k i= l[a;k
ih0oh0vkj0 73@2018 fnukad 07-03-2018 ,oa mi
ftyk eftLVszV 'kkgckn dh vk[;ka fnukad 03-042018 ds vk/kkj fuxZr fd;k x;k gSA

2& ;g izek.k i= lkekU;r% nks o"kZ ds
fy, ekU; gksxk ;fn blls iwoZ dksbZ vijkf/kd ?kVuk
gksrh gS vFkok izkFkhZ ds fo:) dksbZ vijkf/kd eqdnek
vkfn ntZ gksrh gS ;k og fdlh laxfBr vijk/k esa ;k
ekfQ;k xfrfof/k;ksa esa ;k vklkekftd xfrfof/k;ksa eas
idM+k tkrk gS rks iqfyl foHkkx dk ;g mRrjnkf;Ro
gksxk fd bldh lwpuk og ftyk eftLVszV@dysDVj
rFkk lEcfU/kr foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa dks nsxk vkSj
izek.k i= rRdky fujLr fd;k tk;sxkA"

3& bl izek.k i= ds fuxZr djus vFkok
fujLr djus ds lEcU/k esa vafre fu.kZ; lEcfU/kr
ftyk eftLVszV@dysDVj dk gksxkA

15. Thus, it is evident from perusal of
the character certificate issued to the
petitioner that the same was issued on
account of suppression of the material fact
of pendency of the criminal case against the
petitioner. However, the certificate itself
provided that in case any criminal incident
or registration of criminal case or the
involvement of the holder of the certificate,
in any of the criminal case/activities e.g.
organized crime, mafia activities or antisocial
activities,
it
shall
be
the
responsibility of the police authorities to
give information to that effect to the
District Magistrate/Collector and then the
character certificate shall be cancelled and
the decision of the District Magistrate shall
be final.
7 All. Jugal Kishore Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
393

16. The impugned order dated
22.1.2020
has
been
passed
stating
specifically that the petitioner concealed
the material fact of pendency of criminal
case
no.223/2017
under
Sections
147/149/353/332/504/506 and 323 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) against him in
which the charge sheet no.6/2019 has been
filed
on
8.1.2019.
This
ground
of
cancellation and its correctness is not in
dispute and has not been denied by the
petitioner.

17. In the case of Rajnath Singh v.
State of U.P. and 2 others [Writ - C
No.34480 of 2014 (D.B.) decided on
11.7.2014],
wherein
also
the
applicant/petitioner therein did not disclose
the pendency of the criminal case when he
applied for the character certificate and on
this ground of suppression of the criminal
case, the District Magistrate cancelled his
character certificate, this Court upheld the
order of cancellation, and held as under :-

"The admitted facts before the
Court are that the earlier character
certificate was valid until 11 August 2013.
Thereafter the petitioner was required to
apply afresh for the grant of a character
certificate. During the period of the earlier
character certificate, a show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner but based on
the interim order passed by a learned Single
Judge of this Court on an application under
section 482, the term of the certificate
which was to expire on 11 August 2013
was allowed to continue. When the
petitioner applied afresh, it was his
bounden duty to disclose the pendency of
the criminal case. In a public office where
the District Magistrate has to dispose of
administrative and quasi-judicial work
relating to a large body of persons in
society, it cannot be assumed that he would
continue to have knowledge of a disclosure
which was made in pursuance of a notice to
show cause issued in August 2012 in
relation to the grant of the earlier character
certificate.
When
a
new
character
certificate was sought, all material facts
were required to be disclosed and it cannot
be postulated that the District Magistrate
would
have
constructive
notice
of
developments which had come on the
record when the earlier character certificate
held
the
field.
The
petitioner
has
specifically admitted that he had not
disclosed the pendency of the criminal
case. The District Magistrate cannot be
regarded as being in error or having acted
with any perversity in holding that there
was suppression of fact by the petitioner
and that the interim order passed by the
Court did not obliterate the pendency of the
criminal case.

In this view of the matter, we do
not find that within the four corners of the
parameters of the jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution any case for
interference has been made out."

18. In the case of Rajnath Singh
(supra), the proceedings of the criminal
case pending in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate were stayed. This Court held
that the interim order passed by this Court
did not obliterate the pendency of the
criminal case. As such, in the present case
also, the pendency of Criminal Case
No.223 of 2017 against the petitioner, is
not obliterated because of the interim order
dated 8.8.2019 passed by this Court in
application under Section 482 No.10944 of
2019 filed by the present petitioner,
alongwith others, which provided that no
coercive measures shall be taken against
the petitioner. The contention of the
petitioner's counsel based on the interim
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order dated 8.8.2019 and the order passed
by
the
A.C.J.M.-II,
Rampur
dated
19.8.2019 withdrawing the process issued
to the petitioner, pursuant to the interim
order dated 8.8.2019, that the character
certificate could not be cancelled on mere
pendency of the criminal case has no
substance and does not appeal us.

19. In the case of Vijay Prakash
Pandey (supra), relied upon by the
petitioner's counsel, we find that the
petitioner therein was convicted about 20
years back and was released on probation
of good conduct in exercise of the powers
under Section 360 Cr.P.C. and these facts
were not taken into consideration while
refusing to issue character certificate by the
District Magistrate. The present is the case
of suppression of pendency of criminal
case by the present petitioner and as such,
the case of Vijay Prakash Pandey (supra)
is of no help to the petitioner.

20. In the case of Krishna Pal Singh
Chauhan (supra) relied upon by the
petitioner's counsel, the application for
issue of character certificate was rejected in
view of pendency of criminal case, whereas
on earlier occasions, character certificates
were being issued from time to time.
Besides, this does not appear to be a case of
suppression of fact of pendency of the
criminal case. In Krishna Pal Singh
Chauhan (supra) it was held that the
offences therein did not involve moral
turpitude.
In
the
present
case,
the
petitioner's counsel has not been able to
show us that the character certificate could
not be cancelled on the ground of the
pendency of the criminal case unless the
offences involved moral turpitude. As such,
the question of the offences involving
moral turpitude to be the basis of
cancellation of character certificate does
not arise at all. The Krishna Pal Singh
Chauhan (supra) in our view, is of no help
to the petitioner.

21. In view of the judgement of our
own High Court in the case of Rajnath
Singh (supra) we are not inclined to rely
upon the judgement of the High Court of
Uttarakhand in the cases of Vijay Prakash
Pandey (supra), and Krishna Pal Singh
Chauhan (supra), which in our view, do
not apply to the facts of the present case as
well.

22. In the case of Dharam Pal Singh
v. State of Rajasthan [Civil Special
Appeal (Writ) No.893/98] (supra), relied
upon the petitioner's counsel, Dharam Pal
Singh was denied employment on the post
of Constable in the Rajasthan Police
Subordinate Services as he had suppressed
the information that the F.I.R. was lodged
against him for the offences under Section
323 and 34 IPC and had not disclosed this
fact in his application form. The following
questions were referred to the Full Bench
:-

"(1) Whether the fact that a
candidate was prosecuted or subjected to
investigation on a criminal charge is a
material fact, suppression of which would
entitle an employer to deny employment to
a candidate on that ground?

(2) Whether the ultimate acquittal
of a candidate who was prosecuted on a
criminal charge would condone or wash out
the consequences or suppression of the fact
that he was prosecuted?

(3) Whether the suppression of
the material fact would not by itself
disentitle a candidate from being appointed
in service?"
7 All. Jugal Kishore Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
395

23. The full Bench answered the
above questions as under :-

"1.
That
a
candidate
was
prosecuted or subjected to investigation on
a criminal charge is a material fact,
suppression of which would entitle an
employer to deny employment to a
candidate on that ground.

2. That ultimate acquittal of a
candidate who was prosecuted on a
criminal charge would not condone or wash
out the consequences or suppression of the
fact that he was prosecuted.

3.
That
suppression
of
the
material fact would by itself disentitle a
candidate from being appointed in service."

24. If we apply the principles of law
laid down in Dharam Pal Singh (supra)
which is a case of denial of employment to
the person, to the case of cancellation of
character certificate, the impugned order
dated 22.1.2020 is perfectly justified as
suppression of material fact of pendency of
a criminal case by itself disentitled the
petitioner to have the character certificate.

25. The petitioner's counsel has relied
upon relevant paragraphs 145 to 149 of the
case of Dharam Pal Singh (supra). In
paragraph 145, the case of one Om Prakash
(appellant
in
Civil
Special
Appeal
No.956/98) was being dealt with, who had
not suppressed any material information
and as per paragraph 146, the only question
to be decided, with respect to Om Prakash,
was whether the commission of offence
under Section 379 IPC could be treated as
an index of such deficiency of character so
as to deny him the appointment to the post
of constable, particularly when the offence
was committed before he attained the age
of 18 years and was given the benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act. The Full
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court
considered Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police
Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which
provided as under, as regards character :-

"13. Character. - The Character
of a candidate for direct recruitment must
be such as to qualify him for employment
in the Service. He must produce a
certificate of good character from the
Principal
Academic
Officer
of
the
University or College or School in which
he was last educated and two such
certificates, written not more than six
months prior to the date of application,
from
two
responsible
persons
not
connected with his School or College or
University and not related to him.

Notes.- (1) A conviction by a
Court of Law need not of itself involve the
refusal of a certificate of good character.
The circumstances of the conviction should
be taken into account and if they involve no
moral turpitude or association with crimes
of violence or with a movement, which has
its object to overthrow by violent means a
Government as established by law, the
mere conviction need not be regarded as a
disqualification."

26. The reading of Rule 13 note (1)
makes it very clear that the Rule itself
provided that a conviction by a Court of
Law need not by itself involve the refusal
of good character. It was in the background
of the above facts, i.e. no suppression of
material information and the law i.e. Rule
13 r/w note (1), it was held that denial of
appointment merely on the ground of
conviction was unjustified and also that
mere submission of the charge sheet in
respect of any offence by itself was not
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sufficient to disqualify that person. In the
present case, there was suppression of
material fact of pendency of the criminal
case against the petitioner. Further, the
petitioner's counsel has not been able to
place before us any such Rule that mere
pendency of a criminal case by itself would
not involve cancellation of the character
certificate.

27. Now, we proceed to consider the
next submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the order of
cancellation of the character certificate is
contrary to The Uttar Pradesh excise
Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale of
Foreign
Liquor
(Excluding
Beer)
(Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, 2019. He
submitted that the license of a liquor shop
may be cancelled only if the holder
thereof is convicted of any offence
punishable under the Act of 1910 or any
other law for the time being in force. The
Rules 2019 also require filing a notarized
affidavit of good moral character and of
not
having
been
convicted.
The
submission is that the character certificate
could not be cancelled on the ground of
pendency of the criminal case but could
be cancelled only on the ground of
conviction in a criminal case, as on this
ground, the liquor license may also be
cancelled.

28. It is relevant to reproduce Rule
8(d)(iii) of the Rules, 2019, for our
purpose on which reliance has been
placed :-

"8. Eligibility conditions for
applicant. - Eligibility Applicants for
licence of a Retail foreign liquor shop
must fulfil following conditions namely:-

(a) to (c) -------.

(d) submit an affidavit duly
verified by public notary as proof of the
following namely:-

(i) and (ii) -----------.

(iii) that he and his family members
possess good moral character and have no
criminal background nor have been
convicted of any offence punishable
under the United Provinces Excise Act,
1910
or
the
Narcotics
Drugs
and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 or
any other cognizable and nonbailable
offence.

(iv) to (xi) -------."

29. A bare perusal of Rule 8 (d) (iii)
of the Rules 2019 shows that the applicant
for the license of a retail foreign liquor
shop, shall submit an affidavit duly verified
by public notary as proof of the fact that he
and his family members possess good
moral character and have no criminal
background nor have been convicted of any
offence punishable under the United
Provinces
Excise
Act,
1910
or
the
Narcotics
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 or any other
cognizable and non-bailable offence. It
specifically provides that the applicant for
the license of a retail foreign liquor shop
must have no criminal background. If the
applicant has a criminal background, then
also, he does not fulfil the eligibility
conditions, as in such a case, he cannot file
an affidavit duly verified by a public notary
in terms of Clause (d) (iii) of Rule 8 of the
Rules 2019. The conviction in a criminal
case is not must for being ineligible as
provided under Rule 8. The pendency of a
criminal case would be sufficient to deny
issue of the character certificate or for its
cancellation,
and
particularly
where
7 All. Jugal Kishore Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
397
pendency of such case was supressed at the
time of issue of the character certificate. A
person against whom a criminal case is
pending, cannot be said to be a person
having no criminal background. If the
character certificate is issued despite
pendency of a criminal case, because there
is yet no conviction, and on the basis
thereof the petitioner applies for the grant
of license of foreign liquor shop, the same
would not be in consonance with the
eligibility conditions as prescribed under
Rule 8 (d)(iii) of the Rules, 2019. As such
we find that the impugned order dated
22.1.2020 cannot be said to be contrary to
the provisions of the Rules, 2019.

30. ''Character'' means "an attribute,
quality, esp, a trait or characteristic which
serves as an index to the essential or
intrinsic nature of a person"; reputation,
repute; as a man's character for truth and
veracity, a description, delineation, or
detailed account of the qualities or
peculiarities of a person." (Webster's New
International Dictionary)

31. According to Law Lexicon,
"character" means "estimation of a person
by his community; particular qualities
impressed by nature or habit on a person
which distinguish
him
from
others".
Character lies in the man, it is the mark of
what he is, it shows itself on all occasions,
reputation depends upon others; and it is
what they think of him. According to
Oxford
Dictionary
"character"
means
"collective
peculiarities,
sort,
style,
reputation, description of person's qualities,
testimonial, status".

32. In the case of Nilgiris Bar
Association v. T.K. Mahalingam (1998) 1
SCC 550, paragraph 10, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as under :-

"The word "character" is not
defined in the Act. Hence, it must be given
the
ordinary
meaning.
According
to
Webster's New International Dictionary
"character" means "an attribute, or quality
especially a trait or characteristics which
serves as an index to the essential or
intrinsic nature of a person". In Black's
Law Dictionary "character" is defined as
"the aggregate of the moral qualities which
belong to and distinguish an individual
person; the general result of the one's
distinguished attributes". The celebrated
lexicographer has at the same time pointed
out the following aspects also about the
subject:

"Although
character
and
reputation are often used synonymously,
the terms are distinguishable. `Character's
is what a man is, `reputation' is what he is
supposed to be in what people say he is,
`Character'
depends
on
attributes
possessed and `reputation' on attributes
which others believe one to possess. The
former signifies reality and the latter
merely what is accepted to be reality at
present."

33. Thus, the term "character" is of
very wide import and it comprehends all
those traits, dispositions, habits, ways of
acting and inter acting in certain situations
which give an idea of the personality and
enable others to form an opinion and a
reasonable degree of expectations as to
how the person would conduct himself in
the situation in respect of which his
characteristics are visible or otherwise
known. As such, the character certificate
must reflect the true character of the person
holding that certificate to enable others to
form an opinion and a reasonable degree of
expectation as to how that person would
conduct himself in certain situations. The
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
public at large must not be misled by
wrong issue of the character certificate.

34. We also do not find force in the
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the impugned order dated
22.1.2020 suffers from violation of the
principles of natural justice for non-supply
of a copy of the complaint to the petitioner
which was filed by respondent no.3 before
District
Magistrate/respondent
no.2
inasmuch as the ground of cancellation of
the character certificate i.e. the pendency of
the criminal case against the petitioner and
its suppression by the petitioner, is not in
dispute. The petitioner was afforded
opportunity of hearing and was heard
before passing the order dated 22.1.2020.

35. Thus, we do not find any illegality
in the impugned order dated 22.1.2020
passed by the District Magistrate.

36 . The writ petition lacks merit and
is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)07ILR A398
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWINI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ C No. 1671 of 2020

Dheeru Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Vibhu Rai, Sri
Abhinav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rohit Pandey
Civil
Law-U.P.
Anusuchit
Jati
Aur
Anusuchit Janjati Dashmottar Chatravritty
Yojna Niyamawali, 2012-Petitioners have
not qualified the Joint Enterance Examadmitted directly-are lower in merit than
management
quota/spot
counsellingcannot
seek
parity
-rightly
denied
scholorship-falls
under
exempted
category.

Held, the position otherwise appears to have
been further clarified by the State vide
Government Order dated 14.10.2019 as per
which the entitlement to receive scholarship to
the students belonging to management quota
has entirely been done away with. Even
otherwise,
petitioners
have
not
secured
admission on the strength of their merit to be
determined in the Joint Entrance Examination
result. In such circumstances, if the State has
denied consideration to petitioners' claim for
grant of scholarship, no exception can be taken
to it. (Para 15)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Modern Dental College & Research Centre . &
ors. Vs St. of M.P. . & ors., (2010) 14 SCC 186.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)

1. Petitioners, who are five in number,
have approached this Court for a direction
upon the State authorities to release
scholarship to them for the academic
sessions
2018-19
and
2019-20
in
accordance with Uttar Pradesh Anusuchit
Jati Aur Anusuchit Janjati Dashmottar
Chatravritty
Yojna
Niyamawali,
2012
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2012')
and to continue to release the same in
subsequent academic sessions of B.Tech
course.

2. A perusal of record would go to
show that the petitioners have been denied
scholarship under the Rules of 2012 as they