REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4475 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.25607 of 2013
Manyata Devi …Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors. …Respondents
JUDGMENT
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
| 2. | | This appeal arises of out an order dated 2 | nd | April, 2013, |
|---|
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby
Writ Petition No.17398 of 2013 filed by the appellant has
1
Page 1
been dismissed and the order passed by the District
Magistrate, Basti, refusing to issue a character certificate in
favour of the appellant upheld.
| | | | |
|---|
| 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 M/s Krishna Construction was | | | | |
| already registered as a cont | | | ractor but since the said | |
| | | | |
| registration was valid only for | | | a period three years ending | |
| | | | |
| 31st June, 2009, a fresh chara | | | cter/solvency certificate was | |
| necessary for renewal of her registration. | | | | |
| necessary for renewal of her registration. | | | | |
| 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 |
|---|
District Magistrate, Basti, to consider and decide the
application of the appellant within a period of six weeks. The
District Magistrate in compliance with the said order issued a
2
Page 2
| solvency certificate in favour of the appellant on 24 | th | May, |
|---|
2010 but deferred the grant of character certificate till such
time the Superintendent of Police inquired into the matter
| and submitted a report. On re | | | ceipt of the report from the |
|---|
| | | |
| Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate passed an | | | |
| | | |
| order dated 15 | th | 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 appellant filed W | | | rit Petition No.9875 of 2011 |
| | | |
| before the High Court which w | | | as disposed of by the High |
| | | |
| Court on 14th February, 2012 | | | with a direction that the |
| | | |
| appellant should approach the Commissioner in appeal | | | |
against the order passed by the District Magistrate. The
JUDGMENT
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 must be considered on the
basis of the personal character of the person applying for
3
Page 3
the same and not of her family members. Notwithstanding
that direction, the District Magistrate once again passed an
| order dated 12 | th | December, 2012 rejecting the prayer for the |
|---|
| issuance of a character certific | | | ate 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 Writ Petition No.17398 of | | | |
| | | |
| 2013 which came to be dismissed by the High Court by its | | | |
| order dated 2nd April, 2013. Hen | | | ce the present appeal. |
| | | |
| 6. | | We have heard learned cou | nsel for the parties at length |
| | | |
| and perused the orders passe | | | d by the District Magistrate |
| | | |
| and the Commissioner and those passed by the High Court. | | | |
The material facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that
JUDGMENT
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
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
4
Page 4
certificate issued in her favour by the District Magistrate,
Basti. It is common ground that the registration of the
| appellant remained valid upto | 31st 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 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 ki | nd. That being the position, |
| |
| the District Magistrate should | have simply certified her |
| |
| character because that was t | he only question which the |
| |
| former was called upon to examine while dealing with the | |
request made by the appellant. The District Magistrate,
JUDGMENT
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
5
Page 5
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 ag | ainst 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 him to consider the request for the | |
| |
| issue of a certificate based on the character of the applicant | |
| and not her relative or membe | r of the family. Since there |
| |
| was nothing adverse about the | appellant, one would have |
| |
| expected the District Magistr | ate to issue the requisite |
| |
| certificate in favour of the appellant. Instead of doing so, the | |
District Magistrate appears to have invented fresh reasons
JUDGMENT
for denial of a certificate. This time, the certificate 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. We have not been able to appreciate as to how
the District Magistrate could have brought in the question of
6
Page 6
the appellant’s 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 exec | | | uted she could still claim that |
|---|
| | | |
| she bore a good moral 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 pal | | | pable on the face of record. |
| | | |
| 7. | | It was argued on behalf o | f the respondent-State that |
| | | |
| since the appellant had no | | | experience of executing |
| | | |
| contracted works, the refusal of a character certificate was | | | |
only meant to prevent her from getting registered as a
JUDGMENT
contractor with the department. It 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 learned counsel for the respondent, a
“contractors mafia” operating in the State of Uttar Pradesh
7
Page 7
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 competin | g for 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 | |
| appellant, in such a situation, w | ould defeat the very purpose |
| d the learned counsel. |
| behind such registrations, argue | d the learned counsel. |
| |
| 8. There is no quarrel | with the proposition that |
| |
| registration can be insisted upon by the State Government | |
or its departments for purposes of allotment of works and
JUDGMENT
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 registration, could also be stipulated as one of the
requirements to be satisfied by the applicants under the
8
Page 8
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 whether t | hat 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 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 ru | les stipulating registration of |
| |
| contractors to consider such re | quests for registration or to |
| |
| grant or refuse the same. It is the competent authority in | |
the Irrigation Department concerned who has to take a call.
JUDGMENT
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 limited to considering
the request for issuance of a character certificate.
9
Page 9
| 9. | | Having said so, we must add that copy of the rules |
|---|
regulating the registration of contractors has not been
produced by the State. It is, therefore, difficult for us to say
| whether the rules are compre | hensive enough to disentitle |
|---|
| |
| persons who do not have any experience in execution of the | |
| |
| contract works from claiming registration. But there is no | |
| |
| manner of doubt that, if the ground situation in the State of | |
| |
| Uttar Pradesh so requires, the department concerned can | |
| |
| and indeed ought to strengthen the registration procedure | |
| by framing new rules or amend | ing the existing rules on the |
| |
| subject making registration poss | ible only upon satisfaction of |
| |
| such conditions as may be presc | ribed by such rules including |
| experience in executing contracts as one such condition. | |
| 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 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
10
Page 10
free 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. N | o costs |
|---|
……………………………………….…..…J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
……………………………………….…..…J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
……………………………………….…..…J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT)
New Delhi
May 15, 2015
JUDGMENT
11
Page 11
