JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to forbear the respondents from evicting him from the bunk shop situated at Choolai, Chennai – 600 112 and for a consequential direction directing the second respondent to grant him licence in respect of the said bunk shop in his favour. 2. The petitioner claims that he is a physically challenged person and in order to earn his livelihood, he decided to run a physically challenged handicapped bunk shop. After raising funds from several welfare associations, he started a bunk shop at Choolai High Road, Opposite to Ramalinga Hotel during the year 2011 where he is selling tea, coffee, note book, pens, pencils, eatables etc., for the past three years. While so, during May 2014, the officials of the corporation came to his shop and directed him to remove the bunk shop from the above place, otherwise, they will forcibly remove the bunk shop. In this context, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 06.06.2014 addressed to the Commissioner of Chennai Corporation in which it was stated that he is a physically challenged person and sought for issuing licence in his favour in respect of the bunk shop. Again, on 15.06.2014 the officials of the corporation came to his shop and threatened him to remove the shop. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Today, when the writ petition was taken up for admission in the forenoon session, this Court directed the learned standing counsel for the Corporation to get instructions and to verify whether the statements made by the petitioner are correct. At 2.15 pm, when the writ petition is taken up for hearing, an officer attached to the corporation of Chennai is present. The learned standing counsel for the corporation, on getting instructions from the officials of the corporation, stated that there was no such bunk shop in existence as has been alleged by the petitioner. The officer, who is present before this Court, instructed the learned standing counsel to say that there is no such bunk shop in existence at all. 4. The learned standing counsel for the corporation, on getting instructions from the officials of the corporation, stated that there was no such bunk shop in existence as has been alleged by the petitioner. The officer, who is present before this Court, instructed the learned standing counsel to say that there is no such bunk shop in existence at all. 4. It is now contended by the learned standing counsel for the corporation that a new trend has started among the litigants to approach this Court by filing a writ petition as though there was a bunk stall where he or she is carrying on business and such business activities are attempted to be interfered with by the officials of the corporation. On the basis of such an averment, the gullible litigants, after obtaining an interim order from this Court, sets up or erect a new bunk stall. In other words, only after obtaining an interim order from this Court, bunk stalls are being erected. The petitioner has sworn to a false affidavit and therefore, the learned standing counsel for the corporation prayed for dismissal of the writ petition with costs. 5. I heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the corporation. This is a sorry state of affair to note that the litigants, after filing writ petition and obtaining an interim order or direction, according to the learned standing counsel for the corporation, bunk stalls are being erected without any permission from the Corporation. In other words, only on the basis of an order passed by this Court, bunk stalls are being erected by the litigants. Here also, we find from the statement of the learned standing counsel for the respondent/ corporation that the petitioner has not erected any such bunk stall at all in the address furnished in the writ petition. This was also confirmed by the officer attached to the Corporation, who is present before this Court. Such a practice has to be deprecated. If really there is a threat for removal of the bunk stall at the instance of the officials of the Corporation without following the due process of law, this Court can certainly interfere. This was also confirmed by the officer attached to the Corporation, who is present before this Court. Such a practice has to be deprecated. If really there is a threat for removal of the bunk stall at the instance of the officials of the Corporation without following the due process of law, this Court can certainly interfere. At the same time, when the petitioner has come to this Court with unclean hands and sworn to a false affidavit as though the bunk stall, which is not in existence, is sought to be removed by the officials of the Corporation, no relief can be granted by this Court. Even, the representation dated 06.06.2014 said to have been made by the petitioner, which is enclosed in the typed set of papers, is not supported by any acknowledgment. In any event, from the statement of the learned standing counsel for the respondent/corporation, the petitioner has not, so far, erected any bunk stall, as claimed by him in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Therefore, for having made a false statement before this Court, I am inclined to dismiss the writ petition with costs. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) payable by the petitioner to the respondent/corporation within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which it will be open for the Commissioner of Chennai Corporation to initiate appropriate proceedings as contemplated under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the amount of Rs.10,000/-from the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.