The court emphasized the importance of disclosing material information and the employer's discretion in choosing candidates for dealership licenses.

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pump and letter of intent has been issued in favour of the petitioner on 28-2-2013, but subsequently, the same was withdrawn for the reasons that the petitioner has suppressed material information which was required to be supplied by him at the time of filing the form for dealership,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. 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