JUDGMENT : The petitioner, M/s.Devicolam Distilleries Ltd., Kakkanad, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is the holder of Exts.P1 to P5 licenses issued under Part-I of the Kerala Distillery and Warehouse Rules, 1968, which are valid upto 31.03.2019. The provisions under the said Rules deal with the establishment and working of Distilleries, Warehouses and Excise Depots, regulating the issue and transport of spirit to and therefrom and the inspection and supervision thereof. Ext.P1 is the licence issued to the petitioner in Form-I to manufacture spirits in its Distillery; Ext.P2 is the licence in Form-II for compounding and blending of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Imported Liquor for the purpose of sale; Ext.P3 is the licence for bottling of Foreign Liquor for the purpose of sale; Ext.P4 is the licence to establish a Warehouse for the deposit and keeping of spirits without payment of duty; and Ext.P5 is the licence for possession and use of non-duty paid imported/ transported Extra-natural Alcohol (neutral spirit for alcohol drinks) Grape Spirit/Malt in the Bonded Warehouse. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner had registered 7 brands of Foreign Liquor for the financial year 2012-13, 6 brands for 2013-14, 5 brands for 2014-15, 18 brands for 2015-16 & 2016-17 and 20 brands for 2017-18. The document marked as Ext.P7 is a consolidated statement dated 'nil', signed by the Authorised Signatory of the petitioner, showing brand registration fee paid for the period 2012-18. Ext.P8 is another statement dated 'nil', signed by the Authorised Signatory of the petitioner, showing the brands registered for the year 2018. It is averred in the writ petition that, for the financial year 2018-19 the petitioner has registered 25 brands. 3. On 25.04.2018, the petitioner filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 notice dated 02.04.2018 issued by the 5th respondent Excise Inspector, Kakkanad, who is the Distillery Officer in the petitioner's Distillery, whereby a total sum of Rs.2,75,000/-, at the rate of Rs.25,000/-per brand for 11 brands, was demanded in terms of the proviso to sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 of the Foreign Liquor (Registration of Brand) Rules, 1995, substituted vide the Foreign Liquor (Registration of Brand) Second Amendment Rules, 2012, to clear the stock of Foreign Liquor with brand registration for the financial year 2017-18, before 31.05.2018. The document marked as Ext.P10 is a copy of G.O.(P) No.107/2012/TD dated 14.06.2012 (S.R.O. No. 433/2012), whereby the Government notified the Foreign Liquor (Registration of Brand) Second Amendment Rules, 2012, with effect from 04.04.2012. 4. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, it is averred that, the petitioner has challenged Ext.P10 amendment made to the Foreign Liquor (Registration of Brand) Rules, 1995 and the consequential demands made by the respondents, compelling the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- for each brand, in order to clear the stock of Foreign Liquor with brand registration for the previous financial year, by filing W.P.(C) No. 18501 of 2012, which is pending before this Court. It is also averred that, in similar writ petitions filed by certain other Distilleries interim orders staying Ext.P10 notification were obtained and that, Ext.P11 is a true copy of one such interim order issued by this Court dated 06.03.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 7383 of 2017. Paragraph 8 of the writ petition reads thus; “8. It is submitted that the petitioner has challenged Ext.P10 amendment made to the Foreign Liquor (Registration of Brand) Rules, 1995 and the consequent demands made by the respondents compelling the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- for each brand for a period of every two months starting from 1st April, 2012, in order to clear the stock of foreign liquor with brand registration of the previous financial year kept in the petitioner's Distillery under the joint custody of the licensee and the Distillery Officer in Writ Petition (C)No.18501 of 2012 which is pending before this Honourable Court. It is also submitted that similar Writ Petitions were filed by certain other distilleries and interim order staying Ext.P10 notification were obtained. A true copy of such an interim order dated 06.03.2017 issued by this Honourable Court in W.P.(C) No. 7383 of 2017 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P11.” (underline supplied) 5. In the writ petition, the petitioner would contend that the intention of Ext.P10 notification is to collect an additional fee of Rs.25,000/-per brand for clearing the stock of Indian Made Foreign Liquor having brand registration for the previous year. Such subordinate legislation is not contemplated without amending the provisions of the Abkari Act, 1077. In the writ petition, the petitioner would contend that the intention of Ext.P10 notification is to collect an additional fee of Rs.25,000/-per brand for clearing the stock of Indian Made Foreign Liquor having brand registration for the previous year. Such subordinate legislation is not contemplated without amending the provisions of the Abkari Act, 1077. As the petitioner has already remitted the entire fees for the year, any further remittances for removal of brands for which fees have already been paid would amount to unjust enrichment to the Government, which is against all mandatory statutory and constitutional provisions. 6. On 27.04.2018, when the writ petition came up for admission before the Vacation Judge, based on an application filed under Section 8 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 the matter was ordered to be listed to 08.05.2018 for further consideration. On 08.05.2018, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents. This Court granted an interim stay as prayed for, i.e., stay of operation and all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 notice dated 02.04.2018 of the 5th respondent Distillery Officer, for a period of three months. 7. On 27.07.2018, the petitioner filed two interlocutory applications in this writ petition, i.e., I.A.Nos.13727 and 13728 of 2018. I.A.No.13727 of 2018 is filed seeking an interim order directing the 2nd respondent Excise Commissioner to revalidate the export permit of the petitioner and also to direct the 5th respondent Distillery Officer to release the stock to the petitioner, forthwith. I.A.No.13728 of 2018 is filed seeking an order to accept Exts.P39 to P41 as additional documents. 8. In the affidavit accompanying to I.A.No.13727 of 2018, it is averred that the export permit issued to the petitioner dated 09.01.2018 was valid upto 09.03.2018. During the validity of the said permit the petitioner could not export 1000 cases of liquor due to some technical difficulties. Therefore, revalidation of export permit was sought for, which was granted upto 15.06.2018. Based on the export permit, the petitioner approached the 5th respondent Distillery Officer to release the stock from the Bonded Warehouse. During the validity of the said permit the petitioner could not export 1000 cases of liquor due to some technical difficulties. Therefore, revalidation of export permit was sought for, which was granted upto 15.06.2018. Based on the export permit, the petitioner approached the 5th respondent Distillery Officer to release the stock from the Bonded Warehouse. As the 5th respondent failed to release the stock before the expiry of the Export Permit, the petitioner submitted Ext.P39 request dated 12.06.2018 before the 5th respondent Distillery Officer and Ext.P40 request dated 13.06.2018 before the 4th respondent Deputy Excise Commissioner, seeking permission to release the stock, so as to enable the petitioner to export 1000 cases of Scarletts Gold Premium Whisky. 9. In Exts.P39 and P40 requests, the petitioner pointed out that, in view of the interim order of this Court dated 08.05.2018 in this writ petition, staying the demand made in Ext.P9 notice dated 02.04.2018 of the 5th respondent Distillery Officer, the petitioner may be permitted export 1000 cases of India Made Foreign Liquor. In spite of Exts. P39 and P40, the 4th and 5th respondents did not release the stock before the expiry of the Export Permit. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P41 request dated 29.06.2018 before the 2nd respondent Excise Commissioner for revalidation of the Export permit, after remitting a sum of Rs.20,000/-. 10. On 02.08.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court allowed I.A.No.13728 of 2018 and accepted on file Exts.P39 to P41 additional documents. The learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. After extending the interim order of stay by two weeks, the writ petition was ordered to be listed on 09.08.2018, along with W.P. (C) No. 18501 of 2012. On 9.08.2018 the matter was adjourned to 16.08.2018 for filing counter affidavit by the respondents. On 16.08.2018 the matter was adjourned to 10.09.2018, and thereafter, to 12.09.2018. 11. On 12.09.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, Sri K.A. Balan, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that, in view of Ext.P11 interim order of this Court dated 06.03.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 7383 of 2017, there is no justification for respondents 2, 4 and 5 to keep pending the petitioner's request in Exts.P39 to 41. 11. On 12.09.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, Sri K.A. Balan, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that, in view of Ext.P11 interim order of this Court dated 06.03.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 7383 of 2017, there is no justification for respondents 2, 4 and 5 to keep pending the petitioner's request in Exts.P39 to 41. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents, this writ petition was ordered to be listed today, along with the Judge's papers of W.P.(C) No. 7383 of 2017. 12. Heard Sri K.A. Balan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Sri Bimal K. Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. Perused the Judge's papers of W.P.(C) No. 7383 of 2017 filed by M/s.Amrut Distilleries Ltd. and also that of W.P. (C)No.18501 of 2012 filed by the petitioner. 13. The Judge's papers of W.P.(C) No. 7383 of 2017 would show that the said writ petition is one filed by M/s.Amrut Distilleries Ltd. at Chullimada in Palakkad District, seeking a declaration that Ext.P5 amendment made to the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Foreign Liquor (Registration of Brand) Rules, 1995 does not have any application for the financial year 2012-13. The further relief sought for in that writ petition is a writ of certiorari quash Ext.P6 demand notice dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Distillery Officer of that Distillery, demanding enhanced registration fees at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- for liquor brands registered in other States, from the financial year 2012-13. The document marked as Ext.P5 in that writ petition is a copy of G.O.(P) No.57/2013/TD dated 30.03.2013 (S.R.O. No. 254/2013), whereby the Government notified the Foreign Liquor (Registration of Brand) Amendment Rules, 2013. In that writ petition, this Court granted Ext.P11 interim order dated 06.03.2017, staying all steps pursuant to Ext.P6 demand notice dated 18.02.2016, and the said interim order is still in force. 14. In that writ petition, this Court granted Ext.P11 interim order dated 06.03.2017, staying all steps pursuant to Ext.P6 demand notice dated 18.02.2016, and the said interim order is still in force. 14. Sri K.A. Balan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that on account of certain inadvertent mistakes it is averred in paragraph 8 of this writ petition that, in similar writ petitions filed by other Distilleries this Court granted interim order staying Ext.P10 notification dated 14.06.2012 and that, Ext.P11 is a true copy of such an interim order issued by this Court dated 06.03.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 7383 of 2017. The learned counsel would also submit that he has produced the said interim order as Ext.P11 in this writ petition, a copy of which was handed over to him by the representative of the petitioner, without noticing that Ext.P10 notification dated 14.06.2012 is not under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 7383 of 2017. Sri K.A. Balan, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition. 15. The Judge's papers of W.P.(C) No. 18501 of 2012 would show that, the petitioner filed the said writ petition on 06.08.2012 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 Notification, i.e., G.O.(P)No.107/2012/TD dated 14.06.2012 and an order directing the 1st respondent Excise Inspector, Kakkanad, who is the Distillery Officer, to issue permit to the petitioner to dispatch goods without insisting on the payment of Rs.25,000/-per brand. On 07.08.2012, when that writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Beverages Corporation took notice for the 4th respondent. On 06.02.2015 the learned Government Pleader has filed a memo to adopt the counter affidavit dated 28.06.2013 filed by the 1st respondent State in W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2012 as the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent in W.P. (C)No.18501 of 2012. On 06.02.2018, the petitioner filed reply affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 18501 of 2012, to the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent State. 16. The Judge's papers in W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2012 would show that, the said writ petition filed by M/s.Amrut Distilleries Ltd. was dismissed for non-prosecution, by the judgment of this Court dated 16.09.2015. On 06.02.2018, the petitioner filed reply affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 18501 of 2012, to the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent State. 16. The Judge's papers in W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2012 would show that, the said writ petition filed by M/s.Amrut Distilleries Ltd. was dismissed for non-prosecution, by the judgment of this Court dated 16.09.2015. Later, by the order dated 23.02.2016 in M.J.C.No.73 of 2016 that writ petition was restored to file, on payment of a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Kerala High Court Advocates Welfare Trust. In W.P.(C) No. 15780 of 2012, there was no interim order staying the operation of the notification dated 14.06.2012, which is marked as Ext.P5 in that writ petition. 17. On 09.03.2018, the petitioner filed I.A.No.4751 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No. 18501 of 2012 seeking an order to amend that writ petition by incorporating additional statement of facts, grounds and reliefs. The additional reliefs sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are, a declaration that the amendment brought to the Foreign Liquor (Registration of Brand) Rules, 1995 by Ext.P10 notification is unconstitutional and invalid; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to enforce Ext.P10 against the petitioner. I.A.No.4751 of 2018 was allowed on 09.03.2018, and the petitioner was directed to file amended writ petition, within a week. 18. On 19.03.2018, the petitioner filed the amended writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 18501 of 2012. In the amended writ petition filed on 19.03.2018 through the very same counsel, the petitioner has no case that in similar writ petitions filed by other Distilleries this Court granted interim order staying Ext.P10 notification dated 14.06.2012 or that the interim order dated 06.03.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 7383 of 2017 (Ext.P11 in this writ petition) is one such order issued by this Court. 19. After filing the amended writ petition in W.P. (C) No. 18501 of 2012, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 14503 of 2018 before the Vacation Judge, challenging Ext.P9 notice dated 02.04.2018 issued by the 5th respondent Distillery Officer. The said writ petition, which was filed on 25.04.2018 along with an application under Section 8 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 came up for admission before the Vacation Judge on 27.04.2018, which was ordered to be listed to 08.05.2018 for further consideration. The said writ petition, which was filed on 25.04.2018 along with an application under Section 8 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 came up for admission before the Vacation Judge on 27.04.2018, which was ordered to be listed to 08.05.2018 for further consideration. On 08.05.2018, this Court admitted the matter on file and granted an interim stay as prayed for, i.e., stay of operation and all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 notice dated 02.04.2018 of the 5th respondent Distillery Officer, for a period of three months. The statement of facts and grounds in W.P.(C) No. 14503 of 2018, to a very large extent, are verbatim reproduction of the amended writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 18501 of 2012. 20. The filing of W.P.(C) No. 14503 of 2018 before the Vacation Court on 25.04.2018, challenging Ext.P9 notice dated 02.04.2018 of the 5th respondent Distillery Officer, with an averment that, in similar writ petitions filed by other Distilleries this Court granted interim order staying Ext.P10 notification dated 14.06.2012 and that, Ext.P11 is a true copy of such an interim order issued by this Court dated 06.03.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 7383 of 2017, is nothing but a calculated attempt made by the petitioner to secure interim order by misleading this Court. It is pertinent to note that, in W.P.(C) No. 14503 of 2018 no reason whatsoever has been by the petitioner for moving a fresh writ petition before the Vacation Judge challenging Ext.P9 notice dated 02.04.2018 of the 5th respondent Distillery Officer, instead of moving a proper interlocutory application in W.P.(C) No. 18501 of 2012 or even fresh writ petition before the regular Bench till 13.04.2018, i.e., prior to the closure of this Court for the summer recess. 21. As stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 KB 486], 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. 22. In Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [ (2007) 8 SCC 449 ] the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. 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. 22. In Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [ (2007) 8 SCC 449 ] the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. 23. In Prestige Lights' case (supra) the Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the said judgment read thus : “33. It is thus clear that though the appellant-Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 34. The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)], 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 facts - 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." (Emphasis supplied) 24. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [(2008) 12 SCC 481], the Apex Court held that the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Apex 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. 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". In the said decision, the Apex Court held further that, if the primary object as highlighted in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 KB 486] 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. 25. In Usha Nanthini v. Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad and another [ 2018 (2) KHC 89 ] this Court held that, once it is found that the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by suppressing material facts and making false statements, such an attempt made by the petitioner to abuse the process of this Court has to be dealt with appropriately. In such cases this Court has ample power to decline the permission sought for withdrawal of the writ petition. Dismissal of such writ petitions imposing exemplary costs is inevitable, in order to prevent abuse of process of this Court and to preserve purity of judicial proceedings. In such cases this Court has ample power to decline the permission sought for withdrawal of the writ petition. Dismissal of such writ petitions imposing exemplary costs is inevitable, in order to prevent abuse of process of this Court and to preserve purity of judicial proceedings. Paragraphs 26 to 28 of the said judgment read thus : “26. In Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar [ (2017) 5 SCC 496 ] : [2017 SCC Online SC 211] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth. 27. A litigant who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands and clean objects. Any attempt made by a litigant to mislead this Court, either by suppressing materials facts or by filing false affidavits or giving false statements should be curbed with an iron hand. A litigant has every right to withdraw the writ petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution. However, once it is found that he has approached this Court suppressing materials facts or by filing false affidavits or giving false statements, this Court has ample power to decline the permission sought for withdrawal of that writ petition. Dismissal of such writ petitions imposing exemplary costs is inevitable, and even necessary, in order to prevent abuse of the process of this Court and to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings. 28. In the instant case, a reading of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 09/01/2018 would show that the said affidavit has been drafted in a casual manner harbouring the notion that this Court is required to grant permission for withdrawal of the writ petition as a matter of course. 28. In the instant case, a reading of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 09/01/2018 would show that the said affidavit has been drafted in a casual manner harbouring the notion that this Court is required to grant permission for withdrawal of the writ petition as a matter of course. Once it is found that the petitioner has approached this Court suppressing materials facts and making false statements, such an attempt made by the petitioner to abuse the process of this Court has to be dealt with appropriately. In such circumstances, the dismissal of this writ petition imposing exemplary costs is inevitable, declining the permission sought for withdrawal of the same.” 26. Therefore, it is well settled that, a litigant who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands and clean objects. The judicial proceedings are sacrosanct, and no person would be allowed to abuse the judicial process, particularly, in public law remedy. In writ proceedings, the Court places implicit faith on the parties and their pleadings, as it does not indulge in any fact finding or roving enquiry of what has been asserted. Since Article 226 of the Constitution of India espouses equity jurisprudence, a litigant who has approached the Court with unclean hands, without disclosing full facts, is not entitled for any reliefs. 27. As held by the Apex Court in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik's case (supra) a litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth. 28. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth. 28. Therefore, once it is found that the filing of W.P.(C) No. 14503 of 2018 before the Vacation Court on 25.04.2018, challenging Ext.P9 notice dated 02.04.2018 of the 5th respondent Distillery Officer, with an averment that, in similar writ petitions filed by other Distilleries this Court granted interim order staying Ext.P10 notification dated 14.06.2012 and that, Ext.P11 is a true copy of such an interim order issued by this Court dated 06.03.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 7383 of 2017, is nothing but a calculated attempt made by the petitioner to secure interim order by misleading this Court, petitioner who takes liberties with the truth has to be dealt with appropriately. In such circumstances, the dismissal of this writ petition imposing exemplary costs is inevitable, thereby declining the permission sought for withdrawal of the same. 29. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed imposing a cost of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) payable by the petitioner to the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund, to provide relief to flood victims in Kerala. The petitioner shall remit the said amount in the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund, within three weeks from this date. Failing which, the State Government shall recover the said amount by initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner. 30. The remittance/recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as cost by/from the petitioner shall be brought to the notice of this Court by way of a memo filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader. The Registry shall place a copy of this Judgment in the Judge's papers of W.P.(C) No. 18501 of 2012 filed by the petitioner.