Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 64260 (ALL)

RAGHVENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/17579/2025 · 2025-07-09

Saurabh Dwivedi Registrar J Cpc, Y K Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110071-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17579 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raghvendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. Mr. Vikas Yadav, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client has challenged order dated 28th April, 2025 of respondent no.2 (the District Magistrate), rejecting his application for issuance of character certificate. On query he submits, his client is a contractor and for purpose of obtaining work he needs to furnish character certificate. Mr. Gireesh Chandra Tiwari, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and submits, petitioner has not made out any ground for interference. Paragraph - 5 in the writ petition is reproduced below. "5. That for the purpose of obtaining the character certificate, the petitioner had also submitted an affidavit dated 30.12.2024, which was duly filed before the office of the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur. However, the copy of the said affidavit is presently not available with the petitioner. It is respectfully submitted that in paragraph no.4 of the said affidavit, it was inadvertently mentioned that neither the petitioner nor any of his family members have any criminal history. This particular statement was not made with any malafide intention or with an aim to mislead the authorities but was the result of a bona fide misunderstanding between the petitioner and the local counsel who prepared the affidavit on his behalf. The petitioner deeply regrets this unintentional error and submits that the same should not be treated as a willful misrepresentation or false statement, but rather an oversight caused by communication gaps during the drafting process." The authority has taken cognizance of omission as deliberate suppression. That does not give rise to a reason to interfere. Petitioner says, he requires the certificate for obtaining job work. He may approach concerned authority again by pointing out that the omission in the affidavit leading to rejection of his application for character certificate was on misunderstanding. Alternatively, petitioner may approach the appellate authority against the order of rejection. The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Arun K. Singh (Arindam Sinha, J.) (Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad