In case the answer to column No. 20 was in the negative, an affidavit had to be submitted.Under Column No. 21 of the application form, the petitioner was required to furnish any other information.JUDGMENT Saroj Bala, J.The petitioner further seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to revive the letter of appointment dated 10.05.2002 and to permit him to commence business of dealership of petrol/diesel at Ambari, Tehsil Phulpur, District Azamgarh.The factual matrix emerging from the record of the writ petition is as follows:-In pursuance of an advertisement, made sometime in the year 2001 for dealership of retail outlet of petrol/diesel at different places including Ambari, District Azamgarh, the petitioner applied for dealership on the prescribed application form, which accompanied the copy of the brochure.After interview, the respondent Corporation issued a letter of intent dated 6.05.2002 for dealership of retail outlet at Ambari (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) subject to certain conditions.On 10.5.2002 vide letter (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the petitioner was required to submit an affidavit stating that no criminal proceedings are pending against him in any Court in India and to submit a Character Certificate from not less than S.P. Police.On the same day i.e. May 10, 2002, a letter of appointment for dealership of retail outlet (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) was issued by the Corporation.On 29.05.2002 a show cause notice (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) was issued by the Corporation to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why letter of intent dated 6.5.2002 and letter of appointment dated 10.5.2002 be not withdrawn and cancelled for suppression of material information about conviction and sentence in Sessions Trial No. 391 of 1997 under Sections 302/149/148 and 506(ii), I.P.C., P.S. Pawai, District Azamgarh against which a Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2000, Santosh Kumar Yadav and Ors.v. State of U.P. was preferred before the High Court and the petitioner was released on bail.The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice together with an affidavit (Annexures 5 & 6 to the writ petition).The petitioner in the reply admitting his conviction in the aforesaid murder case stated that his involvement in the said offence does not amount to moral turpitude.After taking into consideration the reply of the petitioner, the respondents withdrew the letter of intent and cancelled the letter of appointment on the ground that Column Nos. 20 & 21 of the application form, wherein the petitioner had to make a disclosure about his conviction for any criminal offence, were deliberately and intentionally left blank.In the opinion of the Corporation, the criminal act attributed to the petitioner amounted to moral turpitude.The order of withdrawal of letter of intent and cancellation of letter of appointment have been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds inter alia that conviction for the offence of murder does not fall within the definition of moral turpitude.According to the petitioner the disclosure about the conviction for the offence of murder, was not made by him, as it was not an offence involving moral turpitude.The contention of the petitioner is that his conviction not being for an offence involving moral turpitude, his case does not fall within the purview of Clause 10 of brochure and condition of column 20 of the application form.We have heard Shri Ravi Kant, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri M.K. Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs. 5,000/-.

Cited provisions: Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code