JUDGMENT : 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. 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 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. 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 judgments 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 Judgment 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. 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. 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 eftLVsªV 'kkgckn dh vk[;ka fnukad 03-04-2018 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 gksrk 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 eftLVªsV@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 eftLVªsV @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 anti-social 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. 16. 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. 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 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. 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 judgment of our own High Court in the case of Rajnath Singh (supra) we are not inclined to rely upon the judgment 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? 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?” 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 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. 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 non-bailable 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. 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 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. 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 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.