JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging an order dated 30.06.2011 issued by the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai. 2. By the aforesaid order, the District Collector directed the petitioner to hand over her charge from the post of Noon Meal Organizer in the Vadugappattu Panchayat Government High School Cheyar Panchayart Union. The said order came to be passed on the basis of an earlier order passed in W.P.No.3712 of 2010 dated 17.03.2011. 3. In the affidavit sworn to on 06.09.2011 in Paragraph 19, she had stated that she did not file any previous writ petition for the same relief and no suit and other proceedings are pending before any other Court. In the grounds in Paragraph 20(b) she had also stated that the respondent should not be allowed to take shelter behind the order of this Court in W.P.No.3712 of 2010. 4. When the matter came up for hearing, this Court, on noticing, that the very same petitioner had filed earlier a writ petition in W.P.No.19806 of 2011 through another counsel challenging the very same order dated 30.06.2011, directed the counsel appearing in this writ petition to state as to why she had suppressed the earlier writ petition. The present counsel appearing for the writ petitioner was unable to answer the said question. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to appear before this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before this Court today. 5. The Court also called the records relating to the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.19806 of 2011 for verification. When confronted with the signatures found in the Vakalath and the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner on perusing the records agreed that the signatures found in the earlier writ petition was that of hers. But the petitioner made a faint attempt to state that she was not aware of the contents of the records that she had signed. Such contentions can never be accepted. The petitioner had admittedly signed in English, therefore, she is presumed to have known the contents. It is also the duty of the counsel to explain the contents of the affidavit in case the deponent was an unlettered person or unfamiliar with English. 6. This practice of parties engaging different counsels and filing different writ petitions and assert in the affidavit that they had not filed similar writ petitions must be curtailed. It is also the duty of the counsel to explain the contents of the affidavit in case the deponent was an unlettered person or unfamiliar with English. 6. This practice of parties engaging different counsels and filing different writ petitions and assert in the affidavit that they had not filed similar writ petitions must be curtailed. Therefore, this Court directed the petitioner to explain her conduct for filing the second writ petition on the same subject. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to state as to why the petitioner having filed a writ party appeal against the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3712 of 2010 did not mention about the appeal in W.A.No.1791 of 2011 in her affidavit. The counsel merely stated that he was not posted with the information regarding the same. 7. In any event, the conduct of the petitioner cannot be condoned lightly, especially due to the fact that she was already a party respondent in W.P.No.3712 of 2010 and the counsel appearing in that case for her, had also filed a writ appeal which is also pending before the First Bench. Further, in order to protect her interest, the consequential order also came to be challenged directly in W.P.No.19806 of 2011 which was also admitted and directed to be posted to be heard along with the writ appeal. 8. Merely because, no interim order was granted, the petitioner cannot overreach this Court by engaging another lawyer by filing another writ petition for the same relief. 9. In this context it is necessary to refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs Narmada Bachao Andolan reported in 2011(7)SCC 639@ 705 & 706 . In Paragraphs 163 to 167, it was held as follows: "163. Whenever the court comes to the conclusion that the process of the court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further with the matter. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the court by deceiving it. However, the concealed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed, it would have an effect on the merit of the case/order. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the court by deceiving it. However, the concealed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed, it would have an effect on the merit of the case/order. The legal maxim jus ex injuria non oritur means that a right cannot arise out of a wrongdoing, and it becomes applicable in a case like this. (Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 : AIR 1993 SC 852 ), Noorduddin v. Dr.K.L.Anand ( (1995) 1 SCC 242 ) Ramniklal N.Bhutta v State of Maharashtra ( (1997) 1 SCC 134 : AIR 1997 SC 1236 ), Sabia Khan v.State of U.P. ( (1999) 1 SCC 271 ). S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P)Ltd. v.State of Bihar ( (2004) 7 SCC 166 and Union of India v.Shantiranjan Sarkar ( (2009) 3 SCC 90 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 575). 164. It is a settled proposition of law that a false statement made in the court or in the pleadings, intentionally to mislead the court and obtain a favourable order, amounts to criminal contempt, as it tends to impede the administration of justice. It adversely affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. Every party is under a legal obligation to make truthful statements before the court, for the reason that causing an obstruction in the due course of justice "undermines and obstructs the very flow of the unsoiled stream of justice, which has to be kept clear and pure, and no one can be permitted to take liberties with it by soiling its purity".(Vide Naraindas v. Govt. of M.P. ( (1975) 3 SCC 31 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 727: AIR 1974 SC 1252 ). Advocate General, State of Bihar v.M.P.Khair Industries (1980) 3 SCC 311 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 688: AIR 1980 SC 946 and Afzal v.State of Haryana ( (1996) 7 SCC 397 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 424)). 165. In K.D.Sharma v.SAIL ((2008) 12 SCC 481) this Court held that:(SCC p.492, para 34) "34.....Prerogagtive writs......are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, 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. 165. In K.D.Sharma v.SAIL ((2008) 12 SCC 481) this Court held that:(SCC p.492, para 34) "34.....Prerogagtive writs......are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, 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" (emphasis added) 166. While deciding the said case this Court relied upon upon the leading case of R.v.Kensington Income Tax Commissioners ((1917) 1 KB 486 (CA), wherein it had been observed as under (KB p.514) ".....when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an exparte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts -(it 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". (emphasis added) "36....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.....The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it". (emphasis supplied) 167. In such a case the person who suppresses the material facts from the court is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi i.e. Suppression or failure to disclose what a party is bound to disclose, which may amount to fraud." 10. Though this Court could have taken severe action, considering the fact that she is a lowly paid employee and a woman, this Court gave an opportunity to the petitioner to express her regret for her conduct. The petitioner filed a written letter of request before this Court signed by her today(09.09.2011). Though this Court could have taken severe action, considering the fact that she is a lowly paid employee and a woman, this Court gave an opportunity to the petitioner to express her regret for her conduct. The petitioner filed a written letter of request before this Court signed by her today(09.09.2011). She stated that she had inadvertently filed the present writ petition and she had also wasted the time of the Court. She sought for the forgiveness of the Court for her conduct in suppressing vital information. The letter was taken on record. The counsel also expressed his regret for not verifying the fact and for making the petitioner to raise a ground in Paragraph 20(b) as noted above. 11. Considering the overall circumstances of this case, and accepting the regret letter given, this Court refrain from initiating any further proceedings against the petitioner. However W.P.No.20634 of 2011 will stand dismissed. M.P. Stands closed. No costs.