ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi and Shri R.B.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K. N. Gupta, learned senior counsel with Shri R. S. Dhakad, Advocate for respondent. With consent, heard finally. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16-4-2014 whereby, representation submitted in pursuance to the order dated 27-2-2013 passed in W. P. No. 6436/2012 has been rejected. 2. It is alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner that an advertisement was issued on 19-9-2011 for allotment of dealership of petrol pump at Distt. Sheopur. In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, four candidates have applied for dealership who were called for interview and thereafter, final list was prepared and petitioner was declared the most eligible candidates for allotment of dealership of petrol pump and letter of intent has been issued in favour of the petitioner on 28-2-2013, but subsequently, the same was withdrawn for the reasons that the petitioner has suppressed material information which was required to be supplied by him at the time of filing the form for dealership, an affidavit for required to be submitted by the petitioner to the effect that whether any case of moral turpitude is registered or pending against the petitioner or not. It is alleged by counsel for the petitioner that in the affidavit which was submitted by the petitioner, he has clearly disclosed that he has never been held guilty of any criminal case involving of moral turpitude or financial irregularity nor any charges pertaining to the same have been framed against the petitioner. It is further argued that an FIR was registered against the petitioner at Crime No. 215/2010 at Police Station Shivpuri for alleged offences under sections 294, 323, 427, 356 and 506 Part I of Penal Code and subsequently sections 356 and 379 of Penal Code and 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act were added. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the Police Authority and learned trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioner under sections 294, 323, 427 and 506 Part-I of Penal Code on 22-3-2011. 3. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the Police Authority and learned trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioner under sections 294, 323, 427 and 506 Part-I of Penal Code on 22-3-2011. 3. Petitioner has preferred an M.Cr.C under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code which was registered as M.Cr.C No. 6436/2012 challenging the criminal proceedings registered at Crime No. 215/2010 and on the basis of compromise entered between the parties the aforesaid M.Cr.C was finally heard and decided by the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 27-2-2013 and considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and ors. vs. Radhika and anr., reported in 2012 Cr.L.R (SC) 69, the entire proceedings of criminal case were quashed. The petitioner has alleged that after issuance of Letter of intent in favour of petitioner, a writ petition was preferred before this Court against the petitioner by one Geeta Garg which was registered as W. P. No. 1514/2013 and this Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 24-9-2013 has directed for maintaining status quo with respect to allotment of retail outlet. It was alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner has submitted that a false affidavit along with an application for allotment of dealership of petrol pump. During pendency of the petition, the LOI was issued in favour of the petitioner was withdrawn vide order dated 13-12-2013. 4. The petitioner has preferred an writ petition challenging the withdrawal of LOI vide order dated 13-12-2013, which was registered as W. P. No. 723/2014. The Hon’ble High Court has finally heard and decided the writ petition vide its order dated 13-3-2014 and the impugned order dated 13-12-2013 was quashed and the petitioner was permitted to prefer the representation before respondent No. 1 in view of the fact that proceedings of criminal case registered against the petitioner was already quashed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 27-2-2013 in M.Cr.C No. 6436/2012 and the authorities was directed to address upon the representation and pass a fresh order within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the said order. In pursuance to same, a detailed representation dated 27-3-2014 was filed by the petitioner vide annexure P/9 along with the relevant document and in turn, the respondents have taken into consideration the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the Writ Petition No. 723/2014 and the stand taken by the petitioner has finally decided the representation vide its order dated 16-4-2014. The respondents/Authorities have rejected the representation of the petitioner for the reasons that at the time of filing of the form of allotment of dealership of petrol pump, the petitioner has suppressed the material information regarding pendency of the criminal case against him and has submitted a false affidavit. It is observed by the respondents/authorities that a criminal case against the petitioner as ended on the basis of compromise and all criminal proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. It was further observed that merely quashment of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner will not cure the defect of non-discloser of the fact regarding framing of charges against the petitioner (which were framed on 22-3-2011) and an application for allotment for dealership of petrol pump was filed on 19-10-2011. The aforesaid material information was concealed by the petitioner in his affidavit, therefore, the authorities have rejected the representation. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in pursuance to the advertisement issued Annexure P/2, the affidavit which was required to be given was to the effect that “the petitioner was required to be make discloser to the effect that he has never been convicted and/or no charges have been framed by any Court of law against me for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude/economic offences (other than freedom struggle)”. 5. It is argued that aforesaid offences does not fall under the category of moral turpitude and neither the respondents/authority has given the list of offences which as per their conscience constitute offence against moral turpitude, therefore, the liberty was extended to applicant makes an applicant for allotment of dealership license. It is further argued that the offence under section 294 of Penal Code which was registered against the petitioner which does not fall under the category of ‘Moral Turpitude’. It is further argued that the offence under section 294 of Penal Code which was registered against the petitioner which does not fall under the category of ‘Moral Turpitude’. He has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and anr., reported in 1996(4) SCC 17 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the expression of moral turpitude and has held that “Thus the conviction of the appellant under section 294, Penal Code on its own would not involve moral turpitude depriving him the opportunity to serve the State unless the facts and circumstances, which led to the conviction, met the requirements of the policy decision.” 6. He has further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 573 and has drawn attention of this Court to para 23, 24 and 25 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the word “moral turpitude” and has held that “moral turpitude means anything contrary to honesty, modesty or good morals. It means vileness and depravity conviction of a person in a crime involving moral turpitude comp his credibility as he has been found to have indulged in a shameful, wicked and base activity.” 7. He has further brought to the notice of this Court to the circular dated 14-7-2018 issued by the State Government in pursuance to the order passed by the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and ors., reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 and has pointed out the fact that in aforesaid list of section 427 of Penal Code is not being included. Thus, he has submitted that it is not open to the respondents to say that the offence which are registered against the petitioner were covered under the definition of ‘Moral Turpitude’. It is further argued that in the advertisement (Appendix A-1), the declaration which were sought from the candidate/petitioner was with respect to the offences which have been registered against the candidate involving moral turpitude. As there is no case registered against the petitioner which involves in moral turpitude, therefore, he has given the correct affidavit disclosing all the detail. He has not suppressed anything from the respondents. As there is no case registered against the petitioner which involves in moral turpitude, therefore, he has given the correct affidavit disclosing all the detail. He has not suppressed anything from the respondents. It is incorrect to say that the petitioner has suppressed material information regarding framing of charges against him for the offences which fall under the definition of ‘Moral Turpitude’. He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order with a direction to respondents/authorities to grant of dealership of petrol pump to the petitioner as he was most eligible candidate among all four who applied dealership licence. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has denied the arguments of the petitioner and has contended that in pursuance to the directions given by the Hon’ble Court in W. P. No. 723/2014 wherein, respondent was directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner and after providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order impugned was passed, it was found by the respondents/authorities that the petitioner has not filed the application form with clean hands. He has not disclosed the information which was required to be disclosed regarding registration of criminal case for offences involving moral turpitude. He has further not disclosed that charges have already been framed against the petitioner in the criminal case, by the learned trial Court. The only ground which have been put forth by the petitioner that the criminal case has been quashed by the Hon’ble High Court, but the same is not honorable acquittal, criminal case was settled on the basis of compromise which was entered into between the complainant and the petitioner and all proceedings of the criminal case were quashed. But the fact remains that the petitioner was required to disclose the aforesaid information in the form of affidavit in Appendix-A along with application as was clearly reflected in the advertisement. It is further submitted that the decision has been taken by the respondents/Authorities not to grant the dealership of the petrol pump to the petitioner and scope of judicial review is very limited, therefore, this Court should refrain from entertaining the writ petition. It is further contended that the criminal case registered against the petitioner, wherein charges were framed against the petitioner on 22-3-2011 and application was submitted by the petitioner on 19-10-2011 enclosing affidavit. It is further contended that the criminal case registered against the petitioner, wherein charges were framed against the petitioner on 22-3-2011 and application was submitted by the petitioner on 19-10-2011 enclosing affidavit. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the form of affidavit (Appendix-A) which are required to be submitted by the petitioner, wherein clause No. 5 is relevant. The aforesaid information regarding condition No. 5 was wrongly being given by the petitioner before the authorities and such condition, the respondents have left no other option, but to cancel the Letter of Intent. He has further drawn attention of this Court to affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein, he has categorically stated that in para 5 that neither any offences including moral turpitude is registered against the petitioner nor charges have been framed against the petitioner on any point of time. From bare reading of Para 8, it is clearly seen that in case, the aforesaid information is found to be incorrect by the authorities, then, they are at liberty to cancel the letter of intent of the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner is bound by his own conduct. Thus, the affidavit which has been submitted by the petitioner was subsequently found to be false by the respondents/authorities and accordingly, the order impugned was passed whereby, after scrutiny of the matter, they have rejected the claim of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and anr. vs. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 , Viacom 18 Media Private Limited and ors. vs. Union of India and ors., reported in (2018) 1 SCC 767, Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttranchal and ors., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 and Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 573 . vs. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 , Viacom 18 Media Private Limited and ors. vs. Union of India and ors., reported in (2018) 1 SCC 767, Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttranchal and ors., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 and Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 573 . He has further placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar vs. High Court of M. P. and anr., reported in 2018(2) M.P.L.J. 419 , and has contended that the respondents were having a discretion to decide the grant of dealership licence to petitioner and they have taken a final decision, and considering the factum of investigation of criminal case against the petitioner, which was not disclosed by him in the affidavit, the LOI was cancelled. 9. He has further drawn attention of this Court to judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and has placed heavy reliance upon para 29 and 38.1 of the judgment. 10. It is further argued that it is the domain of employer to provide employment and the same analogy is applied to the case of the petitioner when the candidates of impeachable character are being available and employer is having liberty to choose best out of them. They cannot be compelled to grant allotment of dealership to a person who is having criminal antecedents. Thus, as petitioner was having criminal antecedent and the aforesaid information was being suppressed by the petitioner, therefore, representation filed by the petitioner was rightly being rejected by the respondents/Authorities. No case is made out for interference in the decision of employer. 11. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that although the case which are relied upon by the respondent are relevant to Police Personnel. In the police department employee should have high integrity are required, therefore, there should be deviation from the rules and regulation as require for making appointment, rather the employer it was observed that employment is having right to grant or non grant to the person who is having criminal antecedents. The present case is not the case of appointment to the Police department, rather it is the case regarding grant of dealership of petrol pump. The present case is not the case of appointment to the Police department, rather it is the case regarding grant of dealership of petrol pump. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the affidavit which has been submitted by him at the time of filing of the application and has argued that the language of the affidavit in para 5 is exactly identical to what is required by the respondents as there was no case in moral turpitude registered against the petitioner. The information regarding framing of charges in offences other than moral turpitude offences, the petitioner was not bound to disclose the information. Thus, rejection of the application by the respondents is not only illegal but on wrong facts. The order impugned passed by the respondents is illegal, therefore, he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and direction may be issued to the respondents to grant of dealership of petrol pump. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 13. From the record, it is seen that an advertisement was issued by the respondents/authority for grant of dealership of petrol pump on 19-9-2011 in Sheopur District. Four candidates have submitted their applications including the petitioner and after scrutiny of the documents, candidates were called for interview and petitioner was found most suitable candidate for grant of allotment, accordingly, letter of indent was issued in favour of the petitioner on 28-2-2013. Thereafter, a writ petition was preferred by one Geeta Garg to the effect that petitioner has submitted a false affidavit and has suppressed the information of registration of criminal case against the petitioner and framing of charges by the learned trial Court. 14. A writ petition was preferred by the petitioner which was registered as W. P. No. 1514/2013 and order was issued on 24-9-2013, wherein, a direction has been issued by the Hon’ble High Court to maintain status quo with respect to allotment of dealership. In pursuance to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the respondents have cancelled the letter of intend in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 13-12-2013. In pursuance to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the respondents have cancelled the letter of intend in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 13-12-2013. The petitioner has preferred a M.Cr.C under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code challenging the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner for offences under section 294, 323, 427, 356 and 506 Part I of Penal Code and subsequently added sections 356 and 379 of Penal Code and 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act registered at Crime No. 215/2010. The aforesaid M.Cr.C was finally heard and decided vide its order dated 27-2-2013 and considering the factum of compromise entered into between the complainant and petitioner, the M.Cr.C was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 27-2-2013 and all criminal proceedings of Crime No. 215/2010 were quashed. Another writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the cancellation of LOI, which was registered as W. P. No. 723/2014 which was finally heard and disposed of vide order dated 13-3-2014 and the Hon’ble High Court has quashed the order of cancellation of LOI dated 13-12-2013 and has directed the petitioner to prefer a detailed representation to the respondents along with the relevant documents in support of his case and respondents were directed to pass a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner. A representation was duly preferred by the petitioner, which was rejected by the impugned order holding that the material information has been suppressed by the petitioner regarding registration of a criminal case and framing of charges by the learned trial Court. If disclosed by the petitioner in the affidavit could have disqualified by the petitioner from the allotment of dealership license. The basic argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is whatever was asked to be submitted in the form of the affidavit was submitted by the petitioner. The language/format of affidavit is required to be seen : – 14-A. From perusal of the aforesaid it is seen that the information of with respect to condition No. 5 of the aforesaid affidavit is important wherein, it is clearly to be disclosed that ?I have never been convicted and/or no charges have been framed by a Court of law against me for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude/economic offences (other than freedom struggle)? 15. 15. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted an affidavit in pursuance to the same, wherein in clause 5 as mentioned as under : – 16. From the reading aforesaid makes it clear that the petitioner has disclosed the information in varbatum as required by the authorities. It is the case wherein petitioner was required to disclose the information registration of any criminal offence. Clause 5 of affidavit is in 3 parts, the petitioner was required to disclose the information of registration of a criminal case against him. 17. Further in para 8 of the affidavit, the petitioner has mentioned as under : – 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar (supra) in paras 23, 24 and 25 of the judgment has considered the definition of ‘Moral Turpitude’ has held as under : – 23. Moral Turpitude means [Per Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edn., 2004)] : – “Conduct that is contrary to justice, honesty, or morality. In the area of legal ethics, offenses involving moral turpitude such as fraud or breach of trust. Also termed moral depravity. “Moral turpitude means, in general, shameful wickedness- so extreme a departure from ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the community. It has also been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which one person owes to another, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between people.” 24. In Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and anr., AIR 1996 SC 3300 , this Court has observed as under : – “12. ‘Moral turpitude’ is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity.” “The aforesaid judgment in Pawan Kumar (supra) has been considered by this Court again in Allahabad Bank and anr. vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola, (1997) 4 SCC 1 ; and placed reliance on Baleshwar Singh vs. District Magistrate and Collector, AIR 1959 All. 71 , wherein it has been held as under : – “The expression ‘moral turpitude’ is not defined anywhere. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. 71 , wherein it has been held as under : – “The expression ‘moral turpitude’ is not defined anywhere. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. Every false statement made by a person may not be moral turpitude, but it would be so if it discloses vileness or depravity in the doing of any private and social duty which a person owes to his fellow men or to the society in general. If therefore the individual charged with a certain conduct owes a duty, either to another individual or to the society in general, to act in a specific manner or not to so act and he still acts contrary to it and does so knowingly, his conduct must be held to be due to vileness and depravity. It will be contrary to accepted customary rule and duty between man and man.” “25. In view of the above, it is evident that moral turpitude means anything contrary to honesty, modesty or good morals. It means vileness and depravity. In fact, the conviction of a person in a crime involving moral turpitude impeaches his credibility as he has been found to have indulged in shameful, wicked, and base activities.” 19. In the case of Pawan Kumar (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the code as held has under : – “12. Moral turpitude” is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity. The government of Haryana while considering the question of rehabilitation of ex-convicts took a policy decision on February 2, 1973 (Annexure E in the Paper Book), accepting the recommendations of the Government of India, that ex-convicts who were convicted for offences involving moral turpitude should not however be taken in government service. A list of offences which were considered involving moral turpitude was prepared for information and guidance in that connection. Significantly section 294, Penal Code. As not found enlisted in the list of offences constituting moral turpitude. Later, on further consideration, the government of Haryana on 17/26th March, 1975 explained the policy decision of February 2, 1973 and decided to modify the earlier decision by streamlining determination of moral turpitude as follows : “.. ... Significantly section 294, Penal Code. As not found enlisted in the list of offences constituting moral turpitude. Later, on further consideration, the government of Haryana on 17/26th March, 1975 explained the policy decision of February 2, 1973 and decided to modify the earlier decision by streamlining determination of moral turpitude as follows : “.. ... The following terms should ordinarily be applied in judging whether a certain offence involves moral turpitude or not : (1) whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience of society in general. (2) whether the motive which led to the act was a base one. (3) whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrator could be considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society. Decision in each case will, however, depend on the circumstances of the case and the competent authority has to exercise its discretion while taking a decision in accordance with the above mentioned principles. A list of offences which involve moral turpitude is enclosed for your information and guidance. This list, however, cannot be said to be exhaustive and there might be offence which are not included in it but which in certain situations and circumstances may involve moral turpitude.” Section 294, Penal Code still remains out of the list. Thus the conviction of the appellant under section 294, Penal Code on its own would not involve moral turpitude depriving him the opportunity to serve the State unless the facts and circumstances, which led to the conviction, met the requirements of the policy decision above-quoted.” 20. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to circular dated 14-7-2018 issued by the State Government in pursuance to the directions issued by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and has argued that section 427 of Penal Code is not included in the definition of moral turpitude. Thus, when no case involving offence of moral turpitude was registered against the petitioner, but the fact remains that criminal case was registered against him. It is true that the criminal case registered against the petitioner has been ended by way of compromise, but the same cannot be said to be honorable acquittal. Thus, when no case involving offence of moral turpitude was registered against the petitioner, but the fact remains that criminal case was registered against him. It is true that the criminal case registered against the petitioner has been ended by way of compromise, but the same cannot be said to be honorable acquittal. The law laid down in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra) is applicable in the case of the petitioner and the employer was having every right to choose the best among all the candidates. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was having a criminal case registered against him and the learned trial Court has framed charges against him prior to filing of affidavit. The impugned order was rightly being passed. 21. The fact remains that the advertisement was issued far back in the year 2011 and by the efflux of time, the advertisement has lost its efficacy. Thus, the petition being meritless and devoid of substance is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.