Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.— Case called out. Neither learned Counsel for the petitioner is present nor there is any request for passing over or adjournment of the case. Heard Sri A.K. Bajpai, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel. Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners prays for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to comply with the provisions of Section 31 E of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980. Sri A.K. Bajpai, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant writ petition has been filed by three petitioners, namely, Sima Singh, Km. Ranjana Yadav and Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi. In para-1 of the writ petition, it has been stated that this writ petition is their first writ petition on the present subject and they had not filed any petition on the present cause of action or grounds before the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad or at the Lucknow Bench, which is wrong and misleading because the present petitioners were the three out of four writ petitioners who had approached this Court at Allahabad by filing writ petition No. 823 (S/B) of 2008 in the month of January, 2008 on the same controversy, which has been involved in the instant writ petition and this Court at Allahabad, vide order dated 27.8.2008, decided the said controversy. Thus by concealing the material fact about the decision in their earlier writ petition by the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad, the petitioners have misrepresented before this Hon'ble Court through this present writ petition and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India : (2007) 8 SCC 449 , it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty bound to place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Apex Court Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, LJ. in R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, and observed: "In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep 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, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. 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." In Welcome Hotel and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc. AIR 1983 SC 1015 , the Apex Court has held that a party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.,[2008 (12) SCC 481] the Apex Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and 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. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and Ors. v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Ors.: (2009) 3 SCC 141 . 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. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and Ors. v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Ors.: (2009) 3 SCC 141 . In a recent decision of Dalip Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114], the Apex Court has held that the making of patently false statement on oath by the appellant tenure-holders is amazing. The appellants efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts got transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and the Supreme Court cannot, but treated as reprehensible. From what we have mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioner has filed successive writ petitions with oblique motives and has not presented the correct facts just to gain undue advantage. Such type of practice should always be discouraged and is highly deprecated. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice. This is the case, where we thought to impose heavy cost so as to determine in indulging such activities again but as the petitioner's Counsel is not present, we refrain ourselves from referring the matter to the Bar Council and imposing cost. Therefore, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. _____________