Judgment :- ( The Honourable the Chief Justice & T.S. Sivagnanam ) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to demolish the entire structure put up by the fourth and fifth respondents in Block No.39, Ashok Nagar Scheme (4 in 1), 11th Avenue, Chennai, without permission from the competent authority. 2. The petitioner alleges in the writ petition that she is the owner of flats bearing Nos.38/2 and 38/4 in 12th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83. The 4th and 5th respondents have purchased the entire Block No.39 in Ashok Nagar Scheme and they are raising construction for the purpose of putting up a hospital, without getting due approval from the competent authorities. It is further alleged by the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 have not got permission for converting the residential nature of the flat to a non-residential one. 3. When the case was called out on 3.8.2012, this Court, going by the averments made in the writ petition, directed the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to seek instructions as to how the 4th and 5th respondents are constructing the building without obtaining planning permission. In compliance of the same, today, a counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent-C.M.D.A. stating inter alia that the 4th and 5th respondents have obtained planning permission for the construction of stilt + two floors for a clinic-cum-residential building, vide P.P.A. No.D10/00203/2012 in B.A. No.D10/01196/2012 dated 8.3.2012 issued by the Corporation of Chennai. It is further stated that in view of the direction issued by this Court, the site at Plot No.59, New Door No.59, 11th Avenue, Vaigai Colony, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83 was inspected by the officials of C.M.D.A. On 3.8.2012 and the inspection report has also been submitted. It is stated that while making construction, the 4th and 5th respondents have not made any deviation, except for a deviation to an extent of 0.07 meters (32.20 sq.mts. or 378.90 sq.ft.) in the Floor Space Index (FSI). 4. The extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked by filing writ petition on an affidavit, stating inter alia that the facts stated therein are true to the knowledge, information and belief of the person who is filing the writ petition. or 378.90 sq.ft.) in the Floor Space Index (FSI). 4. The extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked by filing writ petition on an affidavit, stating inter alia that the facts stated therein are true to the knowledge, information and belief of the person who is filing the writ petition. It is only when such affidavit is filed, believing the correctness of the facts stated in such affidavit, which is filed by the petitioner on oath, action is taken or direction is given by Courts. 5. In the case of Raj Kumari Soni vs. State of U.P. reported in (2007) 10 S.C.C. 635 , the Supreme Court categorically held that “it is a fundamental principle of law that a person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and must make a full and complete disclosure of facts to the Court. Parties are not entitled to choose their own facts to put forward before the Court. The foundational facts are required to be pleaded enabling the Court to scrutinise the nature and content of the right alleged to have been violated by the authority”. 6. Similarly, in the case of K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited reported in (2008) 12 S.C.C. 481, the Supreme Court observed as under :- "The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim." The Supreme Court further observed :- "A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power, a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. While exercising extraordinary power, a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, “We will not listen to your application because of what you have done.” The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. ... The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because “the court knows law but not facts”. 7. In the case of Vijay Kumar Kathuriavs. State of Haryanareported in (1983) 3 S.C.C. 333 ,it was the case of the petitioners that the provisional admissions granted to them were not cancelled and they were continuing their studies as postgraduate students in Medical College on the relevant date. On the basis of that statement, they obtained an order of status quo. The Supreme Court ordered inquiry and the District Judge was asked to submit his report whether the provisional admissions granted to the petitioners were continued till 1.10.1982 or were cancelled. The report revealed that to the knowledge of the petitioners their provisional admissions were cancelled long before 1-10-1982 and thus, the petitioners had made false representation to the Court and obtained a favourable order. The report revealed that to the knowledge of the petitioners their provisional admissions were cancelled long before 1-10-1982 and thus, the petitioners had made false representation to the Court and obtained a favourable order. Dismissing the said writ petition, the Supreme Court observed:- “…But for the misrepresentation this Court would never have passed the said order. By reason of such conduct they have disentitled themselves from getting any relief or assistance from this Court and the special leave petitions are liable to be dismissed.” 8. Apart from that, there are a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court where their lordships have reiterated the same principles and held that parties coming to court in writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands and without making false statements in the writ petition. 9. We have found that in many cases, writ petitioners make statements, which upon subsequent enquiry are found to be not true to their knowledge, information or belief. This conduct of persons filing writ petitions needs to be checked in order to curtail the practice of malicious filing of writ petitions. 10. As noticed above, in the instant case, the petitioner, without any responsibility, has stated that the 4th and 5th respondents are making construction without obtaining any planning permission etc. This fact is now proved to be false as per the statement in the counter affidavit filed by the C.M.D.A. after due inspection and enquiry with regard to the subject matter. Hence, while dismissing the writ petition, we impose costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) on the writ petition for making a false statement. The petitioner shall pay the costs in favour of the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai within a period of two weeks from today. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2012 is closed.