ORDER:- 1. As the issue involved in all the four writ petitions is inter-related, all these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of through this common order. 2. W.P.Nos.19608, 19995 of 2018 is filed by one Smt. Gupi Lakshmi Devi, w/o Srinivasulu; W.P.No. 20074 of 2018 is filed by Smt. Gupi Lakshmi Devi and O. Nagendra Kumar; whereas, W.P.No.19926 of 2018 is filed by one Onteru Nagendra Kumar s/o Ramakrishnaiah. 3. For better appreciation of the case, facts in W.P.No.20074 of 2018 are taken for consideration. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , to direct the respondents to receive/accept the demanded amounts from the petitioners for grant of electricity power connection to the petitioners lands in Sy.Nos.1374 and 1373 of Varini Village, Vidavalur Mandal and grant electricity power connection to the petitioners as per their application dated 11.05.2018. 4. Originally, W.P.No.20074 of 2018 was filed by Smt. Gupi Lakshmi Devi and O. Nagendra Kumar against Respondent Nos.1 & 3 – APSPDCL. Later, the unofficial respondents i.e Respondent Nos.4 & 5 were impleaded as party respondents vide orders of this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2018 dated 02.12.2024. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that, Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 who are sister and brother, are owners and possessors of land in Sy.Nos.1374 and 1373 of Varini Village, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds dated 03.09.2011 and 17.03.2014 bearing Document No.4 of 2012 and Document No.3717 of 2014 respectively from the original owners. Since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. The petitioners submitted an application for grant of electricity connection to the respondents on 11.05.2018 by paying requisite fee. The respondents have generated online demand demanding the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.86,170/- each. Inspite of the petitioners attempt to pay the fees, the respondents are not receiving the amount for the reasons best known to them. Challenging the inaction of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not providing electricity connection, the present writ petition is filed. 6. On behalf of APSPDCL, Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations. It is submitted that, the petitioners have not submitted their applications along with required documents and the proof of payment of estimated received for amount till date. Challenging the inaction of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not providing electricity connection, the present writ petition is filed. 6. On behalf of APSPDCL, Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations. It is submitted that, the petitioners have not submitted their applications along with required documents and the proof of payment of estimated received for amount till date. It is submitted that the petitioners have approached this Hon?ble Court with unclean hands and without disclosing the correct facts and trying to mislead this High Court. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. The unofficial respondents/Respondent Nos.4 & 5 filed counter affidavit denying material allegations. Their main contentions are as follows: a) The writ petitioners have played fraud in filing the writ petition with distortion of facts. The property described under the sale deed dated 03.09.2011 falls within the boundaries of sale deeds dated 25.10.2010 and 14.03.2012 of the unofficial respondents. As per the sale deeds dated 17.03.2014, there is only reference of Sy.No.1373/1 only but not 1373. b) An extent of Ac.2-00 out of Ac.8-06 1 ½ cents on the northern said portion in Sy.No.1374 of Varini Village was purchased by Madhaluru Venkataratnamma under registered sale deed dated 24.04.1949 vide Doc.No.1880 of 1949 from Amudala Ramaiah. Respondent No.5 purchased the said land of an extent of Ac.0-66 1/3 cents out of Ac.2-00 under registered sale deed dated 25.10.2010 vide Document No.972/2010. The remaining land of an extent of Ac.1-33 2/3 was registered in faovur of Respondent No.4 under sale deed dated 14.03.2012 vide Document No.166/2012. Thereafter, Respondent Nos.4 & 5 have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective lands. c) Respondent No.5 purchased land of an extent of Ac.1-00 from one Pudi Ramanamma and Ac.4-06 ½ cents from P. Srinivasulu Reddy & others under registered sale deeds dated 25.10.2010 and 28.01.2013 respectively. d) Respondent Nos.4 & 5 filed O.S.Nos.387 & 393 of 2014 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Nellore against the petitioners for declaration of title and for other reliefs. The Hon?ble Court granted interim injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the lands of Respondent Nos.4 & 5. Both the suits are pending adjudication. d) Respondent Nos.4 & 5 filed O.S.Nos.387 & 393 of 2014 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Nellore against the petitioners for declaration of title and for other reliefs. The Hon?ble Court granted interim injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the lands of Respondent Nos.4 & 5. Both the suits are pending adjudication. Respondent No.4 also filed O.S.No.19 of 2018 against the petitioners and others in respect of his land including land in Sy.No.1374 for declaration of title and for other reliefs and the same is pending before the District Court. Though the writ petitioners are contesting the said cases, they did not refer the said cases in the writ petition in order to mislead the Hon?ble High Court. e) The writ petitioners claim that they are the owners and possessors of the said land, which is nothing but false and incorrect statement. P. Srinivasulu Reddy and others already sold away the subject land in Sy.Nos.1373 and 1376 to Respondent Nos.4 & 5 and they have no right to sell the same, as such the writ petitioners do not have any right whatsoever, over the same. In order to mislead this Hon?ble High Court, the Sy.Nos.1373/1 and 1376/1 are mentioned and created sale deeds. Having come to know about the fraud, Respondent Nos.4 & 5 lodged a complaint before the Vidavaluru Police Station and the same is registered as FIR No.52/2015. f) According to the State, the lands in Sy.Nos.1373, 1374 and 1376 are shown as Dotted Lands in the Resurvey and Settlement Register of the Village and unless the classification of the said lands are changed, no NOC can be issued and Respondent Nos.4 & 5 have already filed O.S.No.44 of 2018 for correction of records. g) The writ petitioners are aware that civil cases are pending and interim injunctions have been granted against the petitioners. When the petitioners failed to secure the required mandatory permissions from the respective authorities to carry prawn farming activity, they managed to obtain NOC from the VRO and from the local fisheries department and conveniently avoided to implead the revenue department and other departments as parties to the writ petition. Even though the name of Respondent No.4 is mentioned in the show cause notice, the writ petitioner purposefully avoided him and Respondent No.5 to array as parties to the above writ petition. Even though the name of Respondent No.4 is mentioned in the show cause notice, the writ petitioner purposefully avoided him and Respondent No.5 to array as parties to the above writ petition. Therefore, for non-joinder of proposed necessary parties in this writ petition, the writ petition itself is liable to be dismissed. 8. During hearing, Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy and Sri N.M. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property and they have been cultivating prawn and aqua culture in the subject lands. While so, pursuant to the complaint submitted by the third parties, Respondent Nos.3 & 4 without providing any opportunity and without following due procedure, disconnected the electricity service connection attached to the subject property. He further submits that disconnection of service connection is not caused by any default of payment of charges or any violation of General Terms Of Licensee Special Rules, 2006, therefore, disconnection of service connection of the petitioners is contrary to principles of natural justice and contrary to the principle of Fair and reasonableness in providing opportunity of hearing. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, considering the submissions of the petitioners and violation of principles of natural justice, this Hon?ble Court disposed of W.P.No.19926 of 2016 dated 05.07.2018, directing the 2 nd respondent therein to indicate to the petitioners the costs of transformer meters and lines, then the petitioner ought to pay and thereafter, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 shall provide transformer, meters and lines and also electrical energy to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the unofficial respondents/Respondent Nos.5 & 6 preferred W.A.Nos.1044 & 1045 of 2018 claiming that the subject property belongs to them and they acquired the subject property through registered title deeds in the year 1994. Since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property and the unofficial respondents therein fraudulently by obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Tahsildar concerned, obtained electricity service connection from the electricity department and without having any valid permission, as required, appellants/Respondent Nos.5 & 6 herein were carrying on prawn and aqua business in the said lands. After hearing both the parties, the Hon?ble Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeals set-aside the order of the learned single Judge and restored the writ petitions to file for fresh adjudication by this Court. After hearing both the parties, the Hon?ble Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeals set-aside the order of the learned single Judge and restored the writ petitions to file for fresh adjudication by this Court. In those circumstances, Respondent Nos.5 & 6 were impleaded as party respondents vide order of the Hon?ble Division Bench in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.1044 of 2018 dated 13.08.2021. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, it is settled law that whoever is in possession of the property, they are entitled for electricity service connection even though he may be an encroacher as per Section 43 of the Electricity Act , 2003. He submits that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property and accordingly, the electricity service connections were restored and he has been carrying on aqua and prawn in the subject lands since 2018. Therefore, on the ground of non-production of title, the right of the petitioner cannot be denied, in view of Section 43 of the Electricity Act , 2003 and the official respondents cannot be permitted to disconnect the service connection of the petitioners, pursuant to the claim made by the unofficial respondents, as such, the orders of the learned single Judge dated 05.07.2018 holds good and the petitioners are entitled to the relief as granted earlier. 11. The Learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL argues that the writ petitions are incorrect and the petitioners misled the court by providing false information. Since there is no power supply was not provided by the officials in respect of subject lands even before this writ petition, the issue of disconnection does not apply. The petitioners had submitted an explanation to the show cause notices and allowed the second respondent to make a final decision, but instead of waiting for his decision, they approached the court and falsely claimed facts to get interim orders for restoring their service connections. Therefore, the writ petitions are based on incorrect and invented grounds and approached this Court with unclean hands and tried to mislead this Court, as such, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for unofficial respondents/ Respondent Nos.5 & 6 submits that, the unofficial respondents are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject land, having acquired the same from rightful owners in the year 1994. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for unofficial respondents/ Respondent Nos.5 & 6 submits that, the unofficial respondents are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject land, having acquired the same from rightful owners in the year 1994. Since then, the unofficial respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. She further submits that, the petitioner herein approached this Court with unclean hands, suppressing all the material facts, muchless, pendency of civil suits between the petitioner and unofficial respondents before the District Court and also cancellation of No Objection Certificate by the Tahsildar. She submits that, without impleading the unofficial respondents, at whose instance/complaint, the alleged subject connection was not granted the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition with suppression of material facts and with unclean hands. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief and on that ground, she sought to dismiss the writ petition. 13. The other contention raised by learned counsel for the unofficial respondents/Respondent Nos.5 & 6 is that there is no piece of evidence putforth by the petitioner to show that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property or he acquired the subject property through any valid document, but by obtaining „No Objection Certificate? from the Tahsildar concerned fraudulently obtained the electricity service connection and they are illegally carrying on aqua culture operations in respect of the subject lands by illegally encroaching the land of the unofficial respondents. Immediately, after coming to know about the illegal encroachments, the unofficial respondents submitted a complaint to Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein and Tahsildar concerned, substantiating their claim about possession over their property. After considering the evidence of the petitioner by Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar withdrawn „No Objection Certificate? by issuing notice to the petitioners and thereafter, Respondent Nos.2 to 4 disconnected the electricity service connections of the petitioners which were obtained through fraudulent certificates and by suppressing all these facts, the petitioners invited an order of restoration from this Court on 05.07.2018 against which the unofficial respondents preferred W.A.No.s.1044 & 1045 of 2018. 14. by issuing notice to the petitioners and thereafter, Respondent Nos.2 to 4 disconnected the electricity service connections of the petitioners which were obtained through fraudulent certificates and by suppressing all these facts, the petitioners invited an order of restoration from this Court on 05.07.2018 against which the unofficial respondents preferred W.A.No.s.1044 & 1045 of 2018. 14. Learned counsel highlighted that even though the Division Bench of the Hon?ble Court specifically directed to implead State Government as party to the proceedings, but, for one reason or the other, the petitioners did not choose to implead the State Government and the authorities competent for issuance of permissions for aqua and prawn culture and „No Objection Certificates? in respect of the subject lands as parties to the present writ petitions. She further submits that, admittedly there is neither valid permission nor pending application with the competent authority for carrying on either prawn or aqua culture in the subject lands, which is mandatory as per the provisions of the APSADA Act, as such, the petitioners are carrying on prawn or aqua culture illegally and unauthorisedly, therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed with costs. 15. Heard Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, Sri N.M. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL and learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents and perused the material available on record. 16. In fact, the unofficial respondents have acquired the subject land through a registered title deed in the year 1994. It seems that some portion of the subject lands under unauthorized occupation by way of encroachment by the petitioners herein, since the same is evident from the record filed along with the writ petition, whereas the unofficial respondents already instituted civil suits in O.S.No.387 & 393 of 2014 and O.S.No.19 of 2017 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Nellore, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction over the subject property. The same are pending for consideration before the District Court. 17. It is observed from the material placed before this Court that no electricity service connection was granted against the subject land before filing the writ petitions. There are applications from the petitioners before the authority seeking electricity service connection, against which, the petitioners submitted their objections and substantiated their claim and possession over the subject property before the 2 nd respondent. There are applications from the petitioners before the authority seeking electricity service connection, against which, the petitioners submitted their objections and substantiated their claim and possession over the subject property before the 2 nd respondent. While the applications are pending before the 2 nd respondent for grant of service connection, by suppressing all the material facts, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions claiming restoration of service connections, as if the same were disconnected by the official respondents. 18. In fact, the petitioners have also suppressed certain material facts regarding pendency of civil suits before the Court below between the petitioners and unofficial respondents; non-impleadment of State Government as party respondent in the writ petitions; non-impleadment of unofficial respondents as party respondents to the present writ petition. Therefore, without impleading proper and necessary parties, the petitioners simply filed the writ petitions and sought for restoration of service connections, as if the same were disconnected by the respondents. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. Hence, it is a clear case of suppression of material facts and filing the writ petitions with unclean hands. 19. The said fact was intentionally suppressed by the petitioners so as to mislead the court to obtain an order of writ of mandamus, which is purely discretionary in nature and therefore such suppression of material fact before the Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , claiming writ of mandamus, itself is sufficient to debar this petitioners from claiming any relief and on this ground alone the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 20. Undoubtedly, writ of mandamus is purely discretion in nature and such writ of mandamus can be issued only when the petitioner is able to prove her/his subsisting right or interest in the property and in the absence of infringement or invasion or threatened action to infringe or invade the legal rights of the petitioner; writ of mandamus is not maintainable. In view of the specific plea, it is appropriate to examine the scope of writ of mandamus. 21. Writ of mandamus is purely discretionary in nature and such power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised only in certain circumstances. At best, this Court cannot decide the legality of the order. In view of the specific plea, it is appropriate to examine the scope of writ of mandamus. 21. Writ of mandamus is purely discretionary in nature and such power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised only in certain circumstances. At best, this Court cannot decide the legality of the order. Yet, issuance of Writ of Mandamus is purely discretionary and the same cannot be issued as a matter of course. 22. In “ State of Kerala v. A.Lakshmi Kutty , [ 1986 (4) SCC 632 ] ”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a Writ of Mandamus is not a writ of course or a writ of right but is, as a rule, discretionary. There must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which a mandamus will lie. The legal right to enforce the performance of a duty must be in the applicant himself. In general, therefore, the Court will only enforce the performance of statutory duties by public bodies on application of a person who can show that he has himself a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of a right is the foundation of the jurisdiction of a Court to issue a writ of Mandamus. 23. In “ Raisa Begum v. State of U.P , [1995 All.L.J. 534] ”, the Allahabad High Court has held that certain conditions have to be satisfied before a writ of mandamus is issued. The petitioner for a writ of mandamus must show that he has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or abstain from doing something. There must be in the petitioner a right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the respondents. The duty sought to be enforced must have three qualities. It must be a duty of public nature created by the provisions of the Constitution or of a statute or some rule of common law. 24. Writ of mandamus cannot be issued merely because, a person is praying for. One must establish the right first and then he must seek for the prayer to enforce the said right. If there is failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for a mandamus. The said position is well settled in a series of decisions. 25. In “ State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors. If there is failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for a mandamus. The said position is well settled in a series of decisions. 25. In “ State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors. , [ (1996) 9 SCC 309 ] ” the Supreme Court held as follows: “……....Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition.” 26. In “ Union of India v. S.B. Vohra , [ (2004) 2 SCC 150 ] ” the Supreme Court considered the said issue and held that 'for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. 27. In “ Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain , [ (2008) 2 SCC 280 ] ” the Supreme Court held thus: “The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.: Note 187.-Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. Note 192.-Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. Note 196.-Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances.” 28. When a Writ of Mandamus can be issued, has been summarised in Corpus Juris Secundum, as follows: “Mandamus may issue to compel the person or official in whom a discretionary duty is lodged to proceed to exercise such discretion, but unless there is peremptory statutory direction that the duty shall be performed mandamus will not lie to control or review the exercise of the discretion of any board, tribunal or officer, when the act complained of is either judicial or quasi-judicial unless it clearly appears that there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of such Court, board, tribunal or officer, and in accordance with this rule mandamus may not be invoked to compel the matter of discretion to be exercised in any particular way. This principle applies with full force and effect, however, clearly it may be made to appear what the decision ought to be, or even though its conclusion be disputable or, however, erroneous the conclusion reached may be, and although there may be no other method of review or correction provided by law. This principle applies with full force and effect, however, clearly it may be made to appear what the decision ought to be, or even though its conclusion be disputable or, however, erroneous the conclusion reached may be, and although there may be no other method of review or correction provided by law. The discretion must be exercised according to the established rule where the action complained has been arbitrary or capricious, or based on personal, selfish or fraudulent motives, or on false information, or on total lack of authority to act, or where it amounts to an evasion of positive duty, or there has been a refusal to consider pertinent evidence, hear the parties where so required, or to entertain any proper question concerning the exercise of the discretion, or where the exercise of the discretion is in a manner entirely futile and known by the officer to be so and there are other methods which it adopted, would be effective." 29. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments referred supra, unless the legal right of the petitioner is infringed or invaded or threatened to infringe or invade, a writ of mandamus cannot be granted. 30. It is settled proposition of law that if any person approaches this Court with unclean hands and by suppressing the material facts, they are not entitled for any relief, muchless, the relief as prayed in the writ petitions. 31. It is further observed that, even though the Hon?ble Division Bench of this Court categorically directed the petitioners to implead the State and its instrumentalities from which the petitioners require valid permissions to carry out aqua and prawn culture as well as issuance of No Objection Certificate, for claiming electricity service connection either intentionally or for the reasons best known to the petitioners, the petitioners have not impleaded the State and its instrumentalities which are proper and necessary parties to the writ petitions to state whether the petitioners are carrying on business in accordance with law or not. This itself is suffice to conclude that petitioners have suppressed the material fact and made an attempt to obtain an order invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , which is purely discretionary in nature. 32. The factum of said suppression is a matter of serious concern. This itself is suffice to conclude that petitioners have suppressed the material fact and made an attempt to obtain an order invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , which is purely discretionary in nature. 32. The factum of said suppression is a matter of serious concern. An application under Article 226 would be refuted without a hearing on the merits or a rule nisi discharged, if it appears that the applicant has made a deliberate concealment of material facts, with a view to mislead the Court. 33. A prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, a writ court will bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking the jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or in otherwise 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 abusing the process of the court by deceiving it. The very basis of writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If, material facts are not correctly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of writ court would become impossible. It is a fundamental principle of law that a person invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, must come with clean hands and must make a full and complete disclosure of facts to the court. Parties are not entitled to choose their own facts to put forward before court. A person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the dirt is removed, and the hands become clean, still the court will have to consider whether he should be granted the relief. 34. Prerogative 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 and the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts and the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extra ordinary power, a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses a material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone. 35. A claimant is under a duty to disclose all material facts. These include all material facts known to the applicant and those that he would have known had he made the proper and necessary inquiries before applying for leave. Non-disclosure is sufficient ground for refusing the remedy sought or for setting aside the grant of permission or refusing permission and the claimant may be penalised in courts. Even in an advertent misstatement of fact will be a ground for refusal of relief. 36. In Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P , [ AIR 1983 SC 1015 ] , an interim order was obtained from court alleging the price fixed by government for foodstuffs was too low and uneconomical. But the real fact was that the price was fixed on agreement, which was suppressed. The Court dismissed the writ petition as also vacated the interim orders. In Union of India v. Muneesh Suneja , [ AIR 2001 SC 854 ] , the petitioners filed successive writ petition before different High Courts without disclosing the filing of earlier petition. 37. In All India State Bank ‘Officer’s Federation v. Union of India , [ 1990 (Supp) SCC 336 ] , the court strongly disapproved the conduct of the petitioners infilling writ petition in a different High Court after filing a false declaration that no writ petition was filed earlier. 38. By applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, it is clear that, when the petitioners approached the Court claiming writ of mandamus, suppressing material fact or giving a misstatement of fact in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, they are debarred to claim relief of writ of mandamus, which is purely discretionary in nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 39. 39. As discussed in the earlier paragraphs, the petitioners clearly made a misstatement and suppressed the material factum of non-impleading the State and its instrumentalities and also the unofficial respondents, who are proper and necessary parties for adjudication of the lis in the writ petitions. This itself is suffice to reject the claim of the petitioners as held by the Apex Court in various judgments referred supra. 40. In view of my foregoing discussion, I hold that these petitioners suppressed material fact and gave misstatement, which disentitled these petitioners to claim discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 41. In view of my foregoing discussion, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material fact. 42. In the result, writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. 43. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.