JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J 1. Petitioner by claiming himself to be a probono publico had filed Civil Writ Petition before this Court, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 12.7.2016 by concluding that the petitioner had indulged in proxy war and the writ petition had been filed with an oblique motive by making frivolous and vexatious allegations that too at the instance of the neighbours of respondent No. 5. This Court further concluded that the petitioner had used the attractive brand name of public interest litigation for suspicious product of mischief. The petition so filed by him in no manner sought redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury but was founded on personal vendetta. It is apt to reproduce the relevant observations, which read thus: “29. This case is a classical example where the petitioner has indulged in a proxy war and the instant petition has been filed with oblique motive by making frivolous and vexatious allegations that too at the instance of Shri Vinod Kumar and Smt. Vijay Sharma, who are none other than the neighbours of respondent No. 5. The petitioner has used the attractive brand name of public interest litigation for suspicious products of mischief. This petition in no manner seeks redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury but is founded on personal vendetta and to say the least is a proxy litigation. 30. It would also be noticed that what the petitioner in fact seeks is fishing and roving inquiry without having placed on record any contemporaneous official records to substantiate the allegations levelled by him, more particularly, against respondents No.3 to 5. It has to be remembered that the Court proceedings are sacrosanct and cannot, therefore, be permitted to be polluted. Judicial system cannot be allowed to be abused and brought to its knees by unscrupulous litigants. If the petitioner was really keen in preserving and protection of the natural endowed and dense forests in and around Shimla and had special interest in the heritage monuments/temples situate in Shimla, then he would have at least placed on record some material in support of such contentions. Not only this, if the petitioner was genuinely interested in preserving all that he claims, then why the details of at least one of such similar work undertaken by him is not forthcoming? 31. Not only this, if the petitioner was genuinely interested in preserving all that he claims, then why the details of at least one of such similar work undertaken by him is not forthcoming? 31. It would thus be evident from the aforesaid discussion that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. This Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction is a Court of equity and any person approaching is expected not only to act with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and with clean objective. He who seeks equity must do equity. The judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of Court to subvert justice for the reasons that the Courts exercise jurisdiction only in furtherance of justice. The interest of justice and public interest coalesce and therefore, they are very often one and the same. 32. In view of the aforesaid discussion not only is there no merit in this petition, but the same is also mischievous and has only resulted in wastage of precious Court’s time. Even the respondents have unnecessarily been dragged into an otherwise avoidable litigation. 33. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to respondent No.5 within a period of three months, failing which respondent No.5 shall be at liberty to recover the costs by seeking execution of this order. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application, if any.” 2. The petitioner has sought review of the judgment mainly on the ground that this Court had not proceeded to determine the lis on its merits and had wrongly dismissed the same therefore there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 3. It is more than settled that if a person has not approached the Court with clean hands, the petition should be dismissed at the threshold and reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.D.Sharma versus Steel Authority of India Limited and others (2008) 12 SCC 481, wherein it was observed as under:- “[34] 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. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, there fore, 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. [35] The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136 in the following words: …….it has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material factsit says facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it; the Court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it the Court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.” [36] 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. 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 larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. [37] In Kensington Income Tax Commissioner, Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: “…Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the applicant was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant s affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that this Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit.” (emphasis supplied) [38] 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". 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". [39] If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commissioners is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the Court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. 4. Somewhat similar issue was considered by us recently in CWP No. 2995 of 2016, decided on 2.6.2017, titled as Yashwant Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, wherein, it was observed as under:- “11. 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. 12. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 individuals has tried to acquire any right by unscrupulous or forcible methods. 14. 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 equum 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. 15. 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. 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. 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 on tempt 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.” 5. Coming to the case in hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince this Court that writ petition so filed by him was in the nature of probono publico and not a camouflage to foster personal dispute or vendetta at the instance of the neighbours of respondent No. 5. 6. Once this Court had categorically come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not only misused but abused the process of Court, then obviously it had no option to have dismissed the writ petition at the threshold. 6. Once this Court had categorically come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not only misused but abused the process of Court, then obviously it had no option to have dismissed the writ petition at the threshold. The petitioner had no right whatsoever to even ask much less insist on an adjudication on the merits of the case and there fore this Court was under no obligation to consider the merits of the claim. 7. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no error much less error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.