JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. The petitioner is before this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the decision of the respondent authorities communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 1/9/2009 and also for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for LPG Distributorship in Madhapar Area, Kutchh. 2. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that this is the second round of litigation. The learned advocate submitted that earlier this Court has granted status quo to the petitioner. When inquired, the learned advocate invited attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court in earlier petition being Special Civil Application No. 508 of 2009 dated 22nd January 2009. The order reads as under: "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements under clauses 14.1 and 14.3 of the application form along with other conditions and stood first empaneled candidate in the merit list after the interview, the impugned letter dated 12.1.2009 is an after thought and no hearing is given to the petitioner to give her version on the subject. (emphasis supplied) In view of the above, issue notice returnable on 10-02-2009. The parties are directed to maintain status-quo qua allotment of LPG Distributorship at Madhapar-Kutch, till then. Direct service to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is permitted." 3. Later on, this petition was not pressed as is recorded in order dated 8th July 2009. The same is reproduced for ready reference: "Mr. Ekant Ahuja, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to approach the respondent authority with requisite documents and the same may be considered by the respondent authority. Mr. Kashyap Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that he has no objection to such request made by the petitioner. (emphasis supplied) 2. In the above view of the matter, the petitioner is hereby permitted to approach respondent authority with requisite documents, which shall be considered in accordance with law. 3. With this direction Mr. Ekant Ahuja does not press this petition. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Notice is discharged without any order as to costs." Despite the fact that the earlier petition was 'not pressed', the learned advocate for the petitioner emphatically submitted that, "this Court had ordered to maintain status quo". 4. 3. With this direction Mr. Ekant Ahuja does not press this petition. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Notice is discharged without any order as to costs." Despite the fact that the earlier petition was 'not pressed', the learned advocate for the petitioner emphatically submitted that, "this Court had ordered to maintain status quo". 4. The vehemence on the part of the learned advocate for the petitioner seems to be that because after passing of an order dated 1st September 2009 by this Court, the respondents have granted dealership to some other party. But then, while disposing of the petition 'as not pressed', 'status quo' order was not continued by this Court. Therefore, submitting this point with such vehemence is unwarranted. 5. On the face of it, this petition is not only misconceived but also ill designed. The facts are so moulded, to suit the purpose of the petitioner. In the earlier petition, the petitioner made a statement before the Court to the effect that : " .. .. though the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements under clauses 14.1 and 14.3 of the application form along with other conditions .. .." The learned advocate for the petitioner fairly conceded that affidavit as mentioned in column 14.3 of the application form was not submitted, through oversight. If that is so, the assertion before this Court that the application was submitted by the petitioner fulfilling all the requirements under clauses 14.1 and 14.3 of the application form along with other conditions is a 'mis-statement' and this 'mis-statement' is made with a definite purpose of obtaining a favourable order. In fact, the petitioner was successful in obtaining favourable order of issuance of 'notice' and 'maintaining of status quo'. In fact this fact itself dis-entitles the petitioner for grant of any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Not only that for such conduct proceedings for 'criminal contempt' are required to be initiated. The Court decided not to proceed further on this point because the petitioner has ultimately received 'natural justice' and despite her attempts to fabricate and mislead the respondent authorities and also this Court, her dealership is cancelled by order dated 1st September 2009. (emphasis supplied) 6. The petitioner claims to be a sole proprietary concern, in the name and style of 'Shree Hari Beverages'. (emphasis supplied) 6. The petitioner claims to be a sole proprietary concern, in the name and style of 'Shree Hari Beverages'. Curiously, she has submitted a document which is mentioned in the impugned order in clause (a) of para 5, viz., "Document dated 01.10.2007 on letter head of M/s. Shree Hari Beverages' in favour of you and signed by you stating your salary as Rs. 72,000/- and income of Shree Hari Beverages Rs. 20,000/-." Another document is mentioned in clause (d), which reads as under: "Undated Form No. 16 "issued by you as employer in favour of your husband, Shri Jinabhai Gangji Dabasiya for the period 01/04/06 to 30/09/07 (Assessment Year 2007-08) stating his income Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only)." The document referred to in clause (f) of the same para 5 is as under: "(f) Document dated 05.10.07 on letter head of M/s. Shree Hari Beverages in favour of your husband and signed by you stating his salary as Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. one lac only)." Document at clause (g) is, "Undated certificate of Talati Saha Mantri, Kukma, Taluka Bhuj certifying your income and your husband's income as Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs only)." 7. The authorities considered all these documents in detail, and found that, 'none of these documents are inspiring any confidence, as is set out in the impugned order. Rightly so, the sole proprietor issuing certificate in favour of her husband for the salary. Sole proprietor issuing certificate in favour of her towards salary, and many more discrepancies in the documents submitted by the petitioner which will be appropriate to mention hereunder: "1. Documents at sr. no. A & f above do not indicate any reference to the CST No. /VAT No. /PAN No. in the name of firm as well as to the registration of firm under Shop & Establishments Act. Period for which salary and income is, also not mentioned. 2. Document at sr. no. D is not valid as PAN and TAN No. of dedicator, i.e. employer is not mentioned. Further, TIN No. is not mentioned along with PAN of employee. 3. No documents in support of income from business, certified by CA for the period year 2006-07 is submitted. 4. As per para 14.1 of general instructions, certificate of Mamlatdar/Tehsildar is required fro income from agriculture, however, you have submitted Certificate of Talati at Sr. No. G above which is not acceptable. 3. No documents in support of income from business, certified by CA for the period year 2006-07 is submitted. 4. As per para 14.1 of general instructions, certificate of Mamlatdar/Tehsildar is required fro income from agriculture, however, you have submitted Certificate of Talati at Sr. No. G above which is not acceptable. 5. Documents at Sr. No. c & e above are not authentic and legal documents in respect of sell of grains and fruits. 6. document at Sr. No. 1 do not show the amount of income as claimed by you in the application. 7. Document at Sr. No. B & h are not relevant documents and also do not indicate any reference to the CST No. /VAT number/PAN number in the name of firm as well as to the registration of firm under Shop & Establishments Act licence." 8. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the petitioner was out to grab dealership and to an extent she was successful in misleading the respondent so as to get herself empanelled at serial no. 1, but during the interregnum that dealership was cancelled. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner, this petition deserves to be dismissed with cost and that too exemplary cost so that people do not think that they can walk in the High Court with a manipulated and fabricated documents and can waste time of this Court for long 45 minutes. The cost is, therefore, required to be awarded so that it sends a signal to other members of the society that they should approach the Court only when there is a genuine case. Not only according to their assessment, but also on the basis of the documents on which they are relying upon. 9. The learned advocate Mr. Kashyap R. Joshi for the respondent invited attention of the Court to the documents produced by the petitioner along with the application, which are produced at Annexure 'H' (Colly.) from pages 68 to 105. The learned advocate for the respondent wanted the Court to refer to every document, but then that is not required for the reason that even perusal of few documents is sufficient to reveal that these documents are not even worth the paper on which they are written. Page 95 is on a letter head of Shree Hari Beverages. The learned advocate for the respondent wanted the Court to refer to every document, but then that is not required for the reason that even perusal of few documents is sufficient to reveal that these documents are not even worth the paper on which they are written. Page 95 is on a letter head of Shree Hari Beverages. This document does not mention any CST No. , VAT No. , PAN No. , nor does it mention that the firm is registered under the Shop & Establishments Act. There cannot be any more cryptic document than the one which is referred to. It is dated 5th October 2007. It only mentions, 'Jinabhai Gangji Dabasiya, Rs. 1,00,000/- received towards salary' and there is signature of some one and below that there is signature of the petitioner. If such a document would have been relied upon by the authorities it would have caused total miscarriage of justice. Similar is the case with page 97. It is the document upon letter head of Shree Hari Beverages. It only mentions 'Kantaben Jina Dabasia', item no.(1) Rs. 72,000/-, withdrawal of salary; item no.(2), Rs. 20,000/-, income of Shree Hari Beverages. It is signed by the petitioner. Page 99 is a writing which is executed on 28th July 2009, the day on which the petitioner was given an opportunity by the officers, who made field investigation and visited the house of the petitioner as is mentioned in the order itself and that writing is to the effect that she has not submitted any other documents. Otherwise, again the person like the petitioner could have contended before this Court that though she wanted to produce many other documents, the authorities did not allow production of the same. In the order also it is recorded that, "On 28th July 2009, you informed the said committee in writing that you did not have any other document to submit before the Indian Oil Corporation in support of your claim." 10. Having gone through the matter in detail, having heard the learned advocates for the parties, the Court is of the firm opinion that unless such persons are saddled with exemplary cost, it will be doing injustice to the system. Therefore, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). Deposit of this amount will be the condition precedent for filing any further proceedings. Petition dismissed.