JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of a property having an extent of 11.02 Ares comprised in Re-survey No.S-216/11-3 of Ezhamkulam Village, has obtained Ext.P1 building permit issued by the Secretary of the Ezhamkulam Grama Panchayath dated 17.12.2018 and Ext.P2 development permit dated 17.12.2018. On 22.02.2019, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to issue transit permit and sufficient transit passes to transport ordinary earth extracted by him from the said property, for the purpose of construction of a residential building, after receipt of royalty, without insisting mining permit or environmental clearance, as provided under Rules 14 and 106 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, within a reasonable period. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 application dated 04.02.2019 within a reasonable period. 2. On 25.02.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. 3. On 25.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the 1st respondent District Geologist, submitted that Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner was received in the office of the said respondent only on 23.03.2019, by speed post and that, the said application was not enclosed with any of the mandatory documents, which should accompany such an application for mineral transit passes. As the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the said fact, the learned Government Pleader was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court, the original of Ext.P3 application, along with the envelope. 4. Pursuant to the said order, the learned Government Pleader has made available for the perusal of this Court the original envelop in which Ext.P3 application was received in the office of the 1st respondent District Geologist. As evident from the said envelop, Ext.P3 application dated 04.02.2019 was sent by speed post only on 20.02.2019 from Pachalam Post Office in Ernakulam District. 5. As evident from the said envelop, Ext.P3 application dated 04.02.2019 was sent by speed post only on 20.02.2019 from Pachalam Post Office in Ernakulam District. 5. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, wherein it has been stated that Ext.P3 application dated 04.02.2019 was received in the office of the 1st respondent only on 23.02.2019 and that, the petitioner never approached the said respondent for issuance of transit passes, before the filing of this writ petition. Therefore, the contention in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the 1st respondent did not receive or consider Ext.P3 application without any reason is factually incorrect. Along with the counter affidavit, a photocopy of the postal envelop in which Ext.P3 application was received in the office of the 1st respondent is placed on record as Ext.R1(a). The 1st respondent has also stated that Ext.P3 application for issuance of transit passes was not supported by any documents and as such, the same cannot be considered. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 7. Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner is one seeking mineral transit passes for transporting ordinary earth from his property having an extent of 11.02 Ares comprised in Re-survey No.S-216/11-3 of Ezhamkulam Village. Such an application has been made under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 8. 7. Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner is one seeking mineral transit passes for transporting ordinary earth from his property having an extent of 11.02 Ares comprised in Re-survey No.S-216/11-3 of Ezhamkulam Village. Such an application has been made under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 8. Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which deals with quarrying permit for ordinary earth, reads thus: “Rule 14: Quarrying Permit for ordinary earth.- (1) A quarrying permit under these rules shall be obtained for extraction of ordinary earth used for filling or levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, railways or buildings in Form N: (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), no quarrying permit is required under these rules for extraction of ordinary earth in connection with the construction of residential buildings including flats or commercial buildings having a plinth area of 300 square metres if the owner of the land obtained a prior valid permit for construction of such building from the Local Self Government authorities concerned: Provided that in cases where transportation of ordinary earth is required, the owner of the land shall obtain mineral transit passes for the quantity to be transported under the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 after making payment of royalty, on an application submitted in this regard. Such application shall be accompanied by (1) valid building permit for construction of building obtained from the Local Self Government authorities concerned, (2) land development permit obtained from the Local Self Government authorities concerned in cases where the levelling of the land and extraction of ordinary earth is involved and (3) possession and enjoyment certificate of the land issued by the Village Officer concerned: Provided further that in cases where levelling of land and extraction of ordinary earth is involved, the building permit shall be accompanied by an approved building plan obtained from the Local Self Government authorities concerned which shall contain the area of land to be developed for the construction of the building and the quantity of ordinary earth to be extracted for such construction. (3) A person who applies for mineral transit passes for transportation of ordinary earth under this rule shall also submit along with the application a sworn affidavit in stamped paper to the effect that he will carry out the proposed construction as per the building plan and building permit and shall complete at least the construction of basement of the building within one year from the date of issuance of mineral transit passes and intimate the same to the competent authority. (4) In the event of extraction of ordinary earth outside the permitted area, the permission granted for extraction and transportation shall be liable for cancellation and the offender shall be liable to pay an amount equal to five times the royalty of the ordinary earth extracted outside the area of permission as penalty. (5) In the event of failure to complete at least the construction of basement of building within one year from the date of issuance of mineral transit passes the act of extraction of ordinary earth shall be treated as illegal and the offender shall be liable to pay an amount equal to five times the royalty of the ordinary earth extracted from the area, in addition to the amount already paid.” 9. A reading of the provisions under sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules make it explicitly clear that an application for mineral transit passes for transportation of ordinary earth shall be accompanied by a valid building permit for construction of building, obtained from the Local Self Government authority concerned; land development permit obtained from the Local Self Government authority concerned, in cases where the levelling of the land and extraction of earth is involved; and possession and enjoyment certificate of the land issued by the Village Officer concerned. As per the second proviso to sub-rule (2), in cases where the levelling of the land and extraction of ordinary earth is involved, the building permit shall be accompanied by an approved building plan obtained from the Local Self Government authority concerned, which shall contain the area of the land to be developed for the construction of the building and quantity of ordinary earth to be extracted for such construction. 10. 10. As per sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, a person who applies for mineral transit passes for transportation of ordinary earth under Rule 14 shall also submit along with the application, a sworn affidavit in stamped paper to the effect that he will carry out the proposed construction as per the building plan and building permit and shall complete at least the construction of basement of the building within one year from the date of issuance of mineral transit passes and intimate the same to the competent authority. 11. In the instant case, the fact that Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner before the 1st respondent for issuance of mineral transit passes is not supported by any of the documents as per the mandate of the provisos to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 and also an affidavit as per the mandate of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules is not in dispute. Though Ext.P3 application is one dated 04.02.2019, the same was sent by speed post to the office of the 1st respondent only on 20.02.2019, as evidenced by Ext.R1(a) envelop, which was received in the office of the said respondent only on 23.02.2019. The said fact is also not in dispute. During the course of arguments, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is prepared to produce Ext.P1 building permit, Ext.P2 development permit and also an affidavit as per the mandate of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 before the 1st respondent, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 12. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 145 ] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. Paragraph 15 of the said decision reads thus; "15. .......... The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. Paragraph 15 of the said decision reads thus; "15. .......... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute to enforce its performance. (See Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer [ 1966 (1) SCR 120 : AIR 1966 SC 334 ], Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [1962 Supp (2) SCR 144 : AIR 1962 SC 1210 ] and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar [ (1973) 1 SCC 485 : AIR 1973 SC 964 ]. In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent No. 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Art.226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same." (underline supplied) 13. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [ (2008) 2 SCC 280 ] the Apex Court held that, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [ (2008) 2 SCC 280 ] the Apex Court held that, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said decision read thus; "11. The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. : Note 187.-Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duly to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. Note 192.-Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and Tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and Tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. Note 196.-Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the Court, subject always to the well settled principles which have been established by the Courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and Judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the Court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned -an interest which private litigants are apt to over look when striving for private ends. The Court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Note 206.-.......... The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to support his action. 12. These very principles have been adopted in our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 145 : AIR 1977 SC 2149 ], after referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah [ AIR 1966 SC 334 ], Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Nalanda College [ AIR 1962 SC 1210 ] and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar [ (1973) 1 SCC 485 : AIR 1973 SC 964 ], this Court observed as follows in paragraph 15 of the reports: "15. .......... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of the officer to discharge the statutory obligation. .......... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of the officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate Tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. ......... In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent No. 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Art.226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same." Therefore, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. The respondents have not been able to show that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on the appellant bank to declare their account as NPA from 31st March, 2000 and apply RBI guidelines to their case." 14. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [ (1996) 9 SCC 309 ] the Apex Court held that, under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. Paragraph 10 of the said decision reads thus; "10. Notwithstanding the aforesaid Statutory Rule and without applying the mind to the aforesaid Rule the High Court relying upon some earlier decisions of the court came to hold that the list does not expire after a period of one year which on the face of its erroneous. Further question that arises in this context is whether the High Court was justified in issuing the mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the Writ Petitioners. Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. This being the position and in view of the Statutory Rules contained in Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules we really fail to understand how the High Court issue the impugned direction to recruit the respondents who were included in the select list prepared on 4.4.87 and the list no longer survived after one year and the rights, if any, of persons included in the list did not subsist. ......." 15. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [ (2011) 10 SCC 259 ] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. Vide: State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla [ (1996) 8 SCC 90 ], State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [ 1996 (9) SCC 309 ], Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. [ (1996) 4 SCC 453 ], University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra [ (1997) 10 SCC 264 ] and Karnataka SRTC v. Ashrafulla Khan [ (2002) 2 SCC 560 ]. 16. In the instant case, as borne out from the pleadings and materials on record, the petitioner filed this writ petition before this Court on 22.02.2019, even before the receipt of Ext.P3 application for mineral transit passes by the 1st respondent. Moreover, the said application is not supported by the mandatory documents, as per the provisos to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, and also an affidavit as per the mandate of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any failure on the part of the 1st respondent in discharging his statutory obligations, so as to enable the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for consideration of Ext.P3 application. When Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner is not one supported by the mandatory documents as per the provisos to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 and also an affidavit as per the mandate of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, this Court cannot direct the 1st respondent to consider that application in contravention of the statutory provisions, as no mandamus can be issued to do something which is contrary to law. 17. 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. 18. 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. 18. 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 suppress relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. This 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. 19. 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) 20. 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. 21. In Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar [ (2017) 5 SCC 496 ] 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. 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. 22. 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. 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. 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. 23. In the instant case, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 22.02.2019 with an averment that since the 1st respondent did not receive or consider Ext.P3 application dated 04.02.2018 for mineral transit passes, the petitioner sent a copy of the same through registered post. But the 1st respondent did not take any action on the basis of the said application. In Ground 2, the petitioner has stated that he has produced all documents which are required for the issuance of mineral transit passes in Form O[A] before the 1st respondent and he is also ready and willing to produce any documents which are required for the said purpose. In Ground 2, the petitioner has stated that he has produced all documents which are required for the issuance of mineral transit passes in Form O[A] before the 1st respondent and he is also ready and willing to produce any documents which are required for the said purpose. The 1st averments in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, which stands uncontroverted, would show that, the petitioner who never approached the 1st respondent with a request for mineral transit passes, sent a pre-dated application, i.e., Ext.P3 on 20.02.2019, by speed post, which was not supported by any of the documents as per the mandate of the provisos to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 and also an affidavit as per the mandate of sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Thereafter, on 22.02.2019, the petitioner approached this Court in this writ petition, suppressing material facts, alleging non-consideration of Ext.P3 application dated 04.02.2019 by the 1st respondent. 24. In view of the law laid down 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. 25. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed imposing a cost of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand 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 the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Failing which, the State Government shall recover the said amount by initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner. The remittance/recovery of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand 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.