Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the owner of Building No. 16/287 A. D. Puram Road, Cochin-5. He is a consumer of electricity, his consumer number being No. 7019. There are two rooms in the building. They were rented out. The tenants left the room in February, 1986, since the electricity supply was disconnected in January, 1986. When the tenants vacated, the petitioner contacted the respondent and he was informed that the arrears of electricity charges amounted to Rs. 8000/ . It is stated that the arrears are from 1982 onwards. Petitioner could not raise the entire amount immediately. He approached the respondent and submitted an application to allow him to remit the arrears in instalments and to give him re-connection. It was turned down. The respondent demanded that the petitioner must pay the slab amount of Rs. 144/ per month from January, 1986 to December, 1986. During this period the electric power remained disconnected. The petitioner is not bound to pay the slab amount. Even then the respondent is compelling the petitioner to pay the whole slab amount. Petitioner submitted Ext. P1 application dated 31-12-1986 before the Superintending Engineer, KSEB, Ernakulam. He went through the application, recommended the same and forwarded it to the respondent through the petitioner on 31-12-1986 itself. The respondent was not prepared to effect re-connection until the entire slab amount of Rs. 144/- per month from January, 1986 to December, 1986 was paid. The respondent sent a reply, Ext. P2, stating that instalment shall not be allowed to the petitioner. Ext. P2 is attacked as illegal. The petitioner is not bound to pay the entire amount imposed on him. The recommendation of the superior officer has proved futile en this matter. The petitioner is compelled to approach this Court. Petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to effect re-connection of power supply to consumer No. M. S.7019 and also prays for direction to the respondent commanding him to facilitate instalment payment to the petitioner. 2. When the original petition came up for admission on 8-1-1987, this Court directed Mr. Koshi, Standing Counsel for the KSEB, to clarify the position. Accordingly, Mr. Koshi appeared and the matter was heard on 14-1-1987. I beard counsel for the petitioner Mr. John Joseph as also counsel for the respondent Mr. Koshi. 3. 2. When the original petition came up for admission on 8-1-1987, this Court directed Mr. Koshi, Standing Counsel for the KSEB, to clarify the position. Accordingly, Mr. Koshi appeared and the matter was heard on 14-1-1987. I beard counsel for the petitioner Mr. John Joseph as also counsel for the respondent Mr. Koshi. 3. The main complaint of the petitioner is that the respondent is compelling the petitioner to remit the slab amount of Rs. 144/- per month from January, 1986 to December, 1986 and is refusing to permit the petitioner to remit the arrears in instalments and to give him re-connection. He has also stated that he has submitted Ext. P1 application before the Superintending Engineer. The further definite averment is that the Superintending Engineer, KSEB, "went through the application, recommended the same, and forwarded the same through the petitioner on 31-12-1986 itself" (paragraph 4 of the original petition). It is also stated that "the recommendation of the superior officer has been proved futile in the matter. Hence this petitioner is compelled to approach this Honourable Court invoking its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India" (paragraph 6 of the original petition). 4. At the time of hearing, Mr. Koshi produced before me the application filed by the petitioner before the Superintending Engineer, dated 31-12-1986, wherein the only endorsement made is to the following effect. "Forwarded (in original) to the Ex. Engineer, E1.Dn. Mattancherry for disposal. Sd/- 31-12-86 S. E. (E) EN." Counsel for the petitioner was confronted with this. He has no answer. It is evident that the averments in Para.4 and 6 of the original petition to the effect, that the Superintending Engineer recommended Ext. P1 application and that the recommendation of the superior officer has proved futile in the matter, have been deliberately made to mislead this Court. The said statements are misleading and inaccurate. The petitioner has not made a full and true disclosure of the facts. The petitioner did not fairly state the facts, but stated it in such a way as to mislead this Court as to the true state of affairs. There is misrepresentation or mis statement of the facts deliberately and calculatedly designed to carry the impression that the respondent, notwithstanding the recommendation of the superior officer or authority, insisted upon payment of amounts which cannot be lawfully demanded. There is misrepresentation or mis statement of the facts deliberately and calculatedly designed to carry the impression that the respondent, notwithstanding the recommendation of the superior officer or authority, insisted upon payment of amounts which cannot be lawfully demanded. The misleading statements and incorrect information or misrepresentation are, in the circumstances, intended only to secure orders from this Court which this Court would not otherwise pass. The statements made were oblique and with ulterior purposes. This conduct of the petitioner H sufficient to deny the exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, without proceeding to adjudicate the merits of the case. I bold that the above conduct of the petitioner is sufficient to dissuade this Court from exercising the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitutions of India. I deny jurisdiction. The decisions reported in Ttlokchand Motichand v. H. B. Munshi (AIR 1970 SC 898) (at page 908, Para.36), State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. ((1977) 2 SCC 431) (at page 433, Para.9), G. A. Pillai v. Govt. of India (AIR 1970 Ker.110 (FB)) (at page 112 Para.3), Charanji Lal v. Financial Commissioner (AIR 1978 Punjab & Haryana 326 (FB)) (at page 328, Para.9), Asiatic Engineering Co. v. Achuru Ram (AIR 1951 Allahabad 746 (FB,) (at page 767, Para.51), and Rex v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner ((1917) 1 KB 486) are relevant in this context. Since Mr. Koshi, Advocate, appeared for the respondent in this case, I dismiss this original petition, with costs including Advocate's fee of Rs.500/-.