Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The brief facts as pleaded in the petition are that the respondent-department had invited applications for allotment of fair price shop for three wards of Gram Panchayat Dhagoli namely Gyari, Mangyari and Jhanjhvani. It is averred that the petitioner being fully eligible, applied for the fair price shop, Mangyari and alongwith the application submitted all the requisite documents for the grant of fair price shop i.e. 10th, +2 certificates, medical certificate and also BPL card/certificate. Whereas, the respondent No.4 in whose favour the fair price shop has now been allotted, had though submitted an application, but the same was without any supporting documents and it is on these basis that the petitioner has filed the instant petition claiming therein the following substantive reliefs: “(i) That the impugned Annexure P-5 i.e. allotment of Fair Price Shop in favour of respondent No.4 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the respondent department may further be directed to sanction the Fair Price Shop in the name of the petitioner being his eligibility for the same in accordance with law and after following procedure and permit him to open the Fair Price Shop.” 2. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed the reply wherein it was specifically averred that three applications uptil 9.10.2015 were received for the allotment of fair price shop in question and were accordingly placed before the Public Distribution Committee in the meeting held on 23.11.2015. It was found that the petitioner had not enclosed any document with the application so as to enable the Committee to ascertain his merit and left with no option the Committee evaluated the two other applicants and thereafter recommended the name of respondent No.4, who was the first in merit. 3. When the matter came up before this Court on 28.11.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner was specifically confronted with the reply of the respondents wherein it had been alleged that the petitioner had not annexed any documents alongwith his application and also to seek instructions in this regard. However, he would insist and maintain that he had full instructions to inform this Court that the petitioner in fact had submitted all the documents as mentioned in para-4 of the petition i.e. 10th, +2 certificates, Medical Certificate and BPL card alongwith his application. However, he would insist and maintain that he had full instructions to inform this Court that the petitioner in fact had submitted all the documents as mentioned in para-4 of the petition i.e. 10th, +2 certificates, Medical Certificate and BPL card alongwith his application. Not only this, he would further maintain that it was the respondent No.4, who though has been allotted the shop had in fact not submitted any documents with his application. 4. We accordingly adjourned the case for 29.11.2016 and the respondents were directed to make available the records. 5. Today, the respondents have produced the records and we have gone through the same and find that though the application of the petitioner is available therein, but there is no document accompanying the same. Whereas, on the other hand, the application of respondent No.4 is also available on record and is accompanied by the following documents : (i) Matriculation Certificate; (ii) Unemployment Certificate; (iii) BPL certificate; and (iv) Permanent Resident Certificate. 6. Thus, on the basis of the record, it is proved that the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition are false to his very knowledge. 7. It is settled law that one has to approach the Court with clean hands, clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power, 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 facts or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the application on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case. 8. In order to sustain and maintain the sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law Courts, it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the Court, when a Court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take the consequences that follow on account of its own making. 9. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take the consequences that follow on account of its own making. 9. The Court proceedings are not a game of chess. At no cost can the stream of justice be permitted to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants. The writ Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction exercises equitable jurisdiction. The estoppel stems from equitable doctrine and it requires that he who seeks equity must do equity. Not only this, a person who seeks equity, must act in a fair and equitable manner. The equitable jurisdiction cannot be exercised in case of a person who himself has acted unfairly. Even compassion cannot be shown in such cases. The compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of justice in a case where an individuals has tried to acquire any right by unscrupulous or forcible methods. 10. Equally, the judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice. The legal maxim “Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem”, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. 11. The law on the subject is well settled and on the basis of various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme court, the following principles can conveniently be culled out: “1. A writ remedy is an equitable one. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. 2. Litigant before the Writ Court must come with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. He should disclose all facts without suppressing anything. Litigant cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back)/ conceal other facts. 3. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or mis representation which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. 4. Litigant cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back)/ conceal other facts. 3. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or mis representation which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. 4. If litigant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly or states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power to refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. 5. Such a litigant requires to be dealt with for Contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. 6. There is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure purity and grace in the administration of justice. 7. The litigation in the Court of law is not a game of chess. The Court is bound to see the conduct of party who is invoking such jurisdiction.” 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is sans merit and the same is otherwise liable to be dismissed with heavy costs, more particularly, when the petitioner by misleading this Court has obtained ad-interim orders on 16.02.2016 and thereby deprived the residents of village Mangyari, P.O. Kanthali, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. of the fair price shop. Though, it is represented by the petitioner that he is extremely poor and unemployed person and suffering physical disability of 45%. However, these fact in themselves, do not give licence to the petitioner to adopt unscrupulous methods while approaching the temple of justice, that too, claiming therein equitable and discretionary relief. 13. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) to be paid to respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, respondent No.2 shall be free to have this order executed by filing execution petition. 14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications if any. Interim order granted by this Court on 16.02.2016 is vacated.