MANYATA DEVI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 183, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
/ 
I 
[2015]7S.C.R.183 
/ 
MANYATADEVI 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4475 of2015) 
MAY 15, 2015 
[T. S. THAKUR, R. F. NARIMAN AND 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Administrative Law: 
Administrative order -
Reasonableness of -
Application for grant of character certificate- For the purpose 
of renewal of registration as a contractor under a department 
A 
B 
c 
. of State Government- Initially grant of certificate denied on 0 
the ground that her husband was involved in criminal cases 
-
In appeal, the Commissioner remitted the matter to 
consider the application on the basis of personal character 
of the applicant - The Magistrate again refused to grant the 
certificate on the ground that the applicant did not have E 
experience in contract work - Writ petition against the order 
of Magistrate dismissed - On appeal, held: the jurisdiction 
of the Magistrate was limited to considen'ng the request for 
issuance of character certificate - The Magistrate, by bringing 
in the question of appellant's capability and experience as a F 
contractor to bear upon her moral character, went beyond 
the legitimate sphere of the jurisdiction vested in him. The 
Magistrate directed to reconsider the application for grant of 
character certificate. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The District Magistrate has been swayed 
by considerations wholly extraneous to tl:ie question 
whether the appellant had a good moral character. In H 
183
184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A 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. The Commissioner, 
was, therefore, perfectly justified in setting aside the 
B order passed by the District Magistrate and directing him 
to consider the request for the issue of a certificate 
based on the character of the applicant and not her 
relative or member of the family. Since there was nothing 
adverse about the appellant, one would have expected 
C the District Magistrate to issue the requisite certificate in 
favo~r of the appellant. Instead of doing so, the District , 
Magistrate invented fresh reasons for denial of a 
certificate. This time, the certificate was denied on the 
0 ground that she had no experience in getting the contract 
works executed. The District Magistrate could not have 
brought in the question of the appellant's capability as a 
contractor or her experience in executing works to bear 
upon her good moral character. The reasoning given 
E by the District Magistrate was wholly irrelevant. 
Inasmuch as the District Magistrate ignored the order 
passed by the Commissioner and the considerations that 
would go into grant or refusal of the character certificate, 
he committed a mistake that is palpable on the face of 
F record. [Para 6] (188-F; 189-A-E] 
2. Registration can be insisted upon by the
State 
Government or its departments for purposes of allotment 
of works and participation in auctions relating thereto. 
G There is also no difficulty in the State providing for 
production of a character certificate as one of the 
· conditions of eligibility. Experience of the Contractor, if 
considered relevant for the purposes of such 
registration, could also be stipulated as one of the 
H requirements to be satisfied by the applicants under the
_, 
MANYATA DEVI v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
185 
Rules or Regulations. That such regulation ought to A 
ensure participation of only genuine contractors and 
prevent the mafia from hijacking the system cannot also 
be faulted. However, that purpose cannot ·be achieved 
by a side wind viz. by the District Magistrate denying a 
character certificate to an applicant. This is because the B 
very fact that a character certificate is issued does not 
mean that everyone who has such a certificate gets a 
vested right to be registered as a contractor. The District 
Magistrate did not have any authority under the rules 
stipulating registration of contractors to consider such C 
requests for registration. or to grant or refuse the same. 
ltis the competent authority in the Irrigation Department 
concerned who has to take a call. Inasmuch as the 
District Magistrate took upon himself the duty of D 
examining whether the appellant was suitable for 
registration, he went beyond the legitimate sphere of the 
jurisdiction vested in him which was limited to 
considering the request for issuance of a character 
certificate. The District Magistrate is directed to E 
reconsider the matter and dispose of the application for 
grant of a character certificate. [Paras 8 and 10) [190-C-
H; 191-D-E] 
3. If the ground situation in the State of Uttar F 
Pradesh so requires, the department concerned can and 
indeed ought to strengthen the registration procedure 
by framing new rules or amending the
existing rules on 
the subject making registration possible only upon 
satisfaction of such conditions as may be prescribed by G 
such rules including experience in executing contracts 
as one such condition. [Para 9) [191-B-C] 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
4475 of 2015. 
H
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2013 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 
17398of2013. 
Prashant Kumar, Vaibhav Srivasatava, Joseph 
B Pookkatt for the Appellant. 
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Ram Kishore Singh 
Yadavforthe Respondents. 
/' 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
T. S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises of out an order dated 2"d April, 
2013, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 
D whereby Writ Petition No.17398 of 2013 filed by the appellant 
has been dismissed and the order passed by the District 
Magistrate, Basti, refusing to issue a character certificate in 
favour of the appellant upheld. 
E 
3. The appellant appears to have applied to the District 
Collector, Basti, for a character/enlistment certificate in her 
favour, which it appears is one of the requirements prescribed 
for registration as a contractor under the Irrigation Department 
of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant, as proprietor of 
F M/s Krishna Construction was already registered as a 
contract8r but since the said registration was valid only for a 
period three years ending 31st June, 2009, a fresh character/ 
solvency certificate was necessary for renewal of her 
registration. 
G 
4. The application made by the petitioner appears to 
have remained unattended for some time forcing her to file 
Writ Petition No.17945 of 2010 which was disposed of by the
High Court by its order dated 5th April, 2010 directing the 
H District Magistrate, Basti, to consider and decide the
MANYATA DEVI v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
187 
[T. S. THAKUR, J.] 
application of the appellant within a period of six weeks. The A 
District Magistrate in compliance with the said order. issued a 
solvency certificate in favour of the appellant on 24th May, 201 O 
but deferred the grant of character certificate till such time the 
Superintendent of Police inquired into the matter and submitted 
a report. On receipt of the report from the Superintendent of B 
Police, the District Magistrate passed an order dated 15th 
June, 2010 declining to issue the character certificate to the 
appellant on the solitary ground that her husband was involved 
in four criminal cases during the past. 
5. Aggrieved by the refusal of the character certificate 
in her favour, the appellantfiled Writ Petition No.9875 of2011 
before the High Court which was disposed of by the High Court 
c 
on 14th February, 2012 with a direction that the appellant should 
approach the Commissioner in appeal against the order D 
passed by the District Magistrate. The appellant accordingly 
preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Basti, who set 
aside the order passed by the District Magistrate and remitted 
the matter back to him for appropriate orders with the 
observation that the request for grant of a character certificate E 
must be considered on the basis of the personal character of 
the person applying for the same and not of her family 
members. Notwithstanding that direction, the District 
Magistrate
once again passed an order dated 121h December, F 
2012 rejecting the prayer for the issuance of a .character 
certificate on the ground that the appellant did not have any 
knowledge of contract works which works were being got 
executed by her through her son and other persons. The 
appellant challenged the said order before the High Court in G 
Writ Petition No.17398 of 2013 which came to be dismissed 
by the High Court by its order dated 2"d April, 2013. Hence the 
present appeal. 
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at H 
length and perused the orders passed by the District
188 
SUPREME COURT-REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A Magistrate and the Commissioner and those passed by the 
High Court. The material facts are not in dispute. It is not in 
dispute that the appellant is the sole proprietor of M/s Krishna 
Construction. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was a 
registered contractor with the Irrigation Department of the 
B Government of U.P. for executing civil works. It is also not 
disputed that the registration was earlier granted in favour of 
the appellant pursuant to a solvency and character certificate 
issued in her favour by the District Magistrate, Basti. It is 
common ground that the registration of the appellant remained 
C valid upto 31 51 June, 2009, whereafter the same required a 
renewal based on a· fresh solvency certificate and a character 
certificate according to the applicable norms prescribed by 
the Irrigation Department. That a solvency certificate was 
D issued in favour of the appellant is also not in dispute. 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 
E 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 
F 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 
G 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. The 
Commissioner, Basti was, therefore, perfectly justified in setting 
·aside the order passed by the District Magistrate and directing 
H him to consider the request for the issue of a certificate based
MANYATA DEVI v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
189 
[T. S. THAKUR, J.] 
on the character of the applicant and not her relative or member A 
of the family. Since there was nothing adverse about the 
appellant, one would have expected the District Magistrate to 
issue the requisite certificate in favour of the appellant. Instead 
of doing so, the District Magistrate appears to have invented 
fresh reasons for denial of a certificate. This time, the certificate B 
was denied not because the appellant or anyone in her family 
was implicated in any criminal case but on the ground that she 
had no experience in getting the contract works executed. Vl/e 
have not been able to appreciate as to how the District 
Magistrate could have brought in the question of the appellant's C 
capability as a contractor or her experience in executing works 
to bear upon her good moral character. Even when the 
appellant may have had no experience in getting government 
works executed she could still claim that she bore a good moral D 
character. The reasoning given by the District Magistrate was 
wholly irrelevant to say the .least. Inasmuch as the District 
Magistrate ignored the order passed by the Commissioner 
and the considerations that would go into grant or refusal of 
the character certificate, he committed a mistake that is . E 
palpable on the face of record. 
7. It was argued on behalf of the respondent-Stat~ that 
since the appellant had no experience of executing contracted 
works, the refusal
of a character certificate was only meant to F 
prevent her from getting registered as a contractor with the 
department. ft was also argued that the registration of a 
contractor was necessary and unless such registration was 
granted only in deserving cases, the very purpose of the 
registration would stand defeated. There was, according to G 
learned counsel for the respondent, a "contractors mafia" 
operating in the State of Uttar Pradesh which demanded that 
registration is granted only to people who have no criminal 
background so that genuine contractors are not prevented from 
winning contracts from the Government and competing for H
~ 
190 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 7 S.C.R. 
A allotment of works. It was argued that since the husband of the 
appellant could not himself be registered on account of his 
criminal background, the appellant was being projected for 
such a registration only to make it possible for the husband to 
carry out the works in the name of his wife. Registration of the 
B appellant, in such a situation, would defeat the very purpose 
behind such registrations, argued the learned counsel. 
8. There is no quarrel with the proposition that 
registration can be insisted upon by the State Government or 
C its departments for purposes of allotment of works and 
participation in auctions relating thereto. There is also no 
difficulty in the State providing for production of a character 
certificate as one of the conditions of eligibility. Experience of 
the Contractor, if considered relevant for the purposes of such 
D registration, could also be stipulated as one of the requirements 
to be satisfied by the applicants under the Rules or Regulations. 
That such regulation ought to ensure participation of only 
genuine contractors and prevent the mafia from hijacking the 
system cannot also be faulted. The question, however, is 
E whether that purpose which is indeed laudable could be 
achieved by a side wind viz. by the District Magistrate denying 
a character certificate to an applicant. Our answer is in the 
negative. We say so because the very fact that a character 
F certificate is
issued does not mean that everyone who has 
such a certificate gets a vested right to be. registered as a 
contractor. The District Magistrate did not have any authority 
under the rules stipulating registration of contractors to consider 
such requests for registration or to grant or refuse the same. It 
G is the competent authority in the Irrigation Department 
concerned who has to take a call. Inasmuch as the District 
Magistrate took upon himself the duty of examining whether 
the appellant was suitable for registration, he went beyond the 
legitimate sphere of the jurisdiction vested in him which was 
H limited to considering the request for issuance of a character 
certificate.
MANYATA DEVI v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
191 
[T. S. THAKUR, J.] 
9. Having said so, we must add that copy of the rules A 
.. 
regulating the registration of contractors has not been 
produced by the State. It is, therefore, difficult for us to say 
whether the rules are comprehensive enough to disentitle 
persons who do not have any experience in execution of the 
contract works from claiming registration. But there is no B 
manner of doubt that, if the ground situation in the State of 
l)ttar Pradesh so requires, the department concerned can and 
indeed ought to strengthen the registration procedure by 
framing new rules or amending the existing rules on the subject 
making registration possible only upon satisfaction of such C 
conditions as may be prescribed by such rules including 
experience in executing contracts as one such condition. 
10. 
In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the 
order passed by the High Court and direct the District D 
Magistrate to reconsider the matter and dispose of the 
application for grant of a character certificate keeping in view 
the observations made herein. We make it clear that even when 
the character certificate is issued by the District Magistrate in 
favour of the appellant, the Competent Authority shall be free · E 
. to examine the prayer for registration or renewal in accordance 
with law having regard to the requirements that already exist 
or may be prescribed on the subject by the authority competent 
to do so. No
costs. 
.. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal allowed. 
F