JUDGMENT : Ravikumar, J. Common judgment dated 19.12.2019 in W.P.(C) Nos.3788 of 2015 and 22949 of 2008 is under challenge in these appeals. To be precise, the same person preferred both the appeals. W.A.No.353 of 2020 is filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.3788 of 2015 and W.A.No.564 of 2020 is filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.22949 of 2008. Both the writ petitions were filed by the same person viz., the appellant. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant attempted to argue on merits we declined to hear the appellant on merits. The reason for our disinclination is the fact that is revealed from the operative portion of the impugned judgment that the appellant/petitioner had approached this Court by filing those writ petitions without disclosing the fact that he had earlier filed a writ petition substantially seeking the same reliefs. In this context, it is only apposite to extract the operative portion of the impugned judgment. It reads thus:- “In the above circumstances, the prayers sought for in these writ petitions cannot be allowed. The issue stands covered against the petitioner by the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.2485/2005. The writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly, dismissed. Though the petitioner had been required to show cause why the fact of filing of the earlier writ petition had not been disclosed in the later writ petitions filed seeking substantially the same reliefs, in view of the fact that no relief is being granted to the petitioner in these writ petitions, I refrain from imposing costs in these writ petitions.” (underline supplied) 2. It is evident from the afore-extracted operative portion of the judgment that though the learned Single Judge took serious note of the non-disclosure of the aforesaid fact the learned Judge refrained from imposing costs only for the reason that no reliefs are granted to the petitioner in the writ petitions. The writ petitioner who escaped from imposition of costs solely for the aforesaid reason, now comes up in appeals to assail the said common judgment. 3. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances we have carefully gone through the grounds raised in the appeals. Evidently, no contention has been taken by the appellant in the captioned appeals that the aforesaid observation regarding the non-disclosure, made by the learned Single Judge, is not true to facts. 3. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances we have carefully gone through the grounds raised in the appeals. Evidently, no contention has been taken by the appellant in the captioned appeals that the aforesaid observation regarding the non-disclosure, made by the learned Single Judge, is not true to facts. In other words, the petitioner has not disputed the correctness of the aforesaid observation made by the learned Single Judge. The inevitable conclusion can only be taken that there is suppression of the fact in the writ petitions that he had earlier filed a writ petition seeking substantially the same reliefs. Even before us the said fact is not disputed. When a party approaches this Court suppressing relevant facts this Court can certainly decline to exercise the jurisdiction. It is so held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India reported in 2007 KHC 3936. It was held:- “It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, 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 suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from 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.” It can only be said that non-disclosure of the fact of filing of the earlier writ petition in the later writ petitions filed seeking substantially the same relief, will certainly invite application of the dictum in Prestige Lights Ltd. case (supra). In the circumstances, we decline the jurisdiction and consequently, the appeals are dismissed.