MANYATA DEVI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 7 S.C.R. 183 · Decided: 15-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
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 i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.