JUDGMENT PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. - This writ appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order dtd. 24/11/2022 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.35916 of 2022 and imposing cost of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 (Rupees one lakh only) on each of the writ petitioner Nos.1 to 14 for abusing the process of the court by preferring the writ petition with unclean hands and filing false affidavit. 2. Writ Petitioners had challenged Notice in Encroachment No.681/2022/G1, dtd. 21/5/2022, issued by the 2nd respondent-Municipal Corporation directing to remove the encroachments alleged to have been made by them, without following principles of natural justice. 3. When the writ petition had come up for hearing on writ petitioners contended that the impugned notice for removal of encroachments has been issued in utter violation of principles of natural justice without issuing any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing. Such contention has been raised in paragraph 6 of the writ affidavit. Based on the same, the learned single Judge granted interim relief on 4/11/2022. However, when the matter came up for hearing on subsequent dates, learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent informed the court that the order/notice dtd. 21/5/2022 impugned in the writ petition, has been issued after serving show-cause notice to the writ petitioners. A copy of the notice and service report was placed before the court, on which writ petitioners were afforded opportunity to ascertain the facts. Writ petitioners did not controvert the stand of the 2nd respondent that show-cause notice was served upon them before issuing order/notice dtd. 21/5/2022. As a matter of fact, learned single Judge records in paragraph 6 of the impugned order that writ petitioners admit that show-cause notice was served on them before issuing order/notice dtd. 21/5/2022. Learned single Judge, thereafter, directed the writ petitioners to appear in person and afforded them opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order imposing costs for submitting false affidavit. 4. 21/5/2022. Learned single Judge, thereafter, directed the writ petitioners to appear in person and afforded them opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order imposing costs for submitting false affidavit. 4. 11.2022, Learned single Judge referred to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. V. Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly Division, Bareilly and others - (2010) 4 SCC 728, wherein it was held that a person who approaches the court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. Learned single Judge further referred to Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others - (2013) 2 SCC 398 , wherein it was held that no litigant can play "hide and seek" with the courts or adopt "pick and choose". Reference has also been made to Sciemed Overseas Inc. V. Boc India Limited and others - (2016) 3 SCC 70 , wherein the Supreme Court, referring to Muthu Karuppan v Parithi Illamvazhuthi - (2011) 5 SCC 496 , in which it was held that filing of a false affidavit should effectively curbed with a strong hand, held that though the observation was made in the context of contempt of court proceedings, but the view expressed must be generally endorsed to preserve the purity of the judicial proceedings. 5. The learned single Judge, holding that writ petitioners have abused the process of the court and did not approach the court with clean hands, turned down the request of the counsel for the writ petitioners to show sympathy and pardon the writ petitioners and imposed costs as stated above. 6. It is settled law that though jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable and discretionary, the same is required to be exercised on sound judicial principles basing upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the petitioners in writ proceedings approach the court with a plea of violation of principles of natural justice and obtain interim relief and at a later point of time, if the plea is proved to be incorrect, a presumption would arise that such non-disclosure of true facts or misrepresentation was with a view to obtain a favourable order behind the back of the opposite party, which necessarily means abuse of process of court. In such an event, it is the duty of the court to deal with the issue sternly so that the tendency to misuse judicial process is curbed and such unscrupulous litigants are discouraged from raising such incorrect or false pleas. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that the learned single Judge has rightly imposed costs on the writ petitioners and that the present is not a fit case for interference in exercise of powers under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 8. The writ appeal, bereft of substance, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.